Article - Provincetown Banner 11/29/2007

By Elspeth Pierson

BANNER CORRESPONDENT

EASTHAM — The board of selectmen met with the wind turbine ad hoc committee Monday afternoon to receive its proposed commercial wind turbine bylaw.

The committee was charged with drafting a bylaw representing a compromise between earlier bylaw proposals offered by the Hesse group and the joint energy committee and board of selectmen. The goals of the new bylaw were to provide standards allowing wind energy developers to consider the potential of citing commercial wind turbines in Eastham and to ensure that any adverse effects of wind turbines on the town and its residents would be minimized.

The board of selectmen was for the most part pleased with the document, with reservations centering mainly on technical wording and lack of clarity. Section C2D, which outlines requirements for noise studies, was an area of particular contention because the parameters in the document are based on current industry best practice standards. With the increasingly rapid evolution of green technology, these standards are likely to see rapid change.

Although the bylaw allows for such change, stating that “all standards are subject to review and modification by the standards’ governing body,” Selectman Dave Schropfer did not think that the level of specificity was appropriate. “This level of detail is highly unlike most other wind bylaws,” said Schropfer. “For me a bylaw should be just as good 50 years from now as it is today, and when you get this specific, the bylaw will not work. With the immense changes going on within the state with green legislation, we could find ourselves in a year or two really behind the eight ball.”

While other selectmen and wind committee members pointed out that recognition of rapidly evolving standards is why the provision for change was included, Schropfer was not convinced. “I remain concerned about the longterm liability of the bylaw,” he reiterated. “I don’t know if anyone went to the last Town Meeting, but they are not easy things — they are not places where you can depend on change.”

Wind committee member Leslie Morse defended the committee’s decision to include the level of specificity that it did. “I think it is terribly technical,” she said, “but I think we felt it was necessary in part because Eastham is so dense. Consultants need some sort of standard to do noise studies, because any turbine this big will impact people and we are trying to protect the public the best we can.”

Selectmen were also looking for answers to other technical questions; namely, definitions for tricky technical terms like “L90” and “shadow flicker.” The board proposed holding a public workshop with the planning board and the wind committee in order to go through the rationale of the document and better understand the more technical sections. “It would be great to get this information out to residents before Town Meeting so that people aren’t asking ‘What’s a shadow flicker?’ that night,” said Selectman Martin Mc Donald.

Selectmen were also interested in the rationale behind the setback siting standards outlined insection D2 of the bylaw. The bylaw establishes the minimum setback distance for commercial turbines as whichever is greater between three times the blade tip height or 1,000 feet from the nearest residential property line. Committee chair Thomas Reilly explained the committee’s rationale, saying, “We took into account that people use more of their property than simply the residence. They are entitled to the same accommodation and quality of life outside in their yard as inside their house.”

The proposed by-law also called for special permitting for any wind facility over 60 kilowatts, site plans and visualizations from three to six vantage points for any proposed turbine, and landscapes, operation and maintenance plans. As outlined in the bylaw, no wind turbine is to be higher than 400 feet and a safety zone with a radius of 1.5 times the turbine’s height would surround it, with no residences allowed in that area. Turbine color, lighting, and other aesthetic standards were also outlined. Environmental standards set forth included mitigation of noise, land clearing, soil erosion and habitat impacts.

While discussion stayed on topic for the most part, there was some anecdotal debate over the potential of commercial wind turbines in Eastham. “I stood under the wind turbines at Hull ,” said Selectman Ken Collins, “and I can’t comprehend the noise factor because I heard the noise, and there was no noise.”

Wind committee member Andrew Wells, pointed out that it is “very difficult to make conclusions based on a person’s anecdotal experience” as turbine noise can be complicated by a vast array of factors including meteorological andtopographical influences. It wasclear that the debate could have gone on.

Before adjourning, selectmen voted 5-0 to accept the report under advisement.

	Article - The Provincetown Banner 11/29/2007
	Selectmen will mull over new turbine bylaw proposal
	By Elspeth Pierson BANNER CORRESPONDENT EASTHAM — The board of selectmen met with the wind turbine ad hoc committee Monday afternoon to receive its proposed commercial wind turbine bylaw. The committee was charged with drafting a bylaw representing a compromise between earlier bylaw proposals offered by the Hesse group and the joint energy committee and board of selectmen. The goals of the new bylaw were to provide standards allowing wind energy developers to consider the potential of citing commercial wind turbines in Eastham and to ensure that any adverse effects of wind turbines on the town and its residents would be minimized. The board of selectmen was for the most part pleased with the document, with reservations centering mainly on technical wording and lack of clarity. Section C2D, which outlines requirements for noise studies, was an area of particular contention because the parameters in the document are based on current industry best practice standards. With the increasingly rapid evolution of green technology, these standards are likely to see rapid change. Although the bylaw allows for such change, stating that “all standards are subject to review and modification by the standards’ governing body,” Selectman Dave Schropfer did not think that the level of specificity was appropriate. “This level of detail is highly unlike most other wind bylaws,” said Schropfer. “For me a bylaw should be just as good 50 years from now as it is today, and when you get this specific, the bylaw will not work. With the immense changes going on within the state with green legislation, we could find ourselves in a year or two really behind the eight ball.” While other selectmen and wind committee members pointed out that recognition of rapidly evolving standards is why the provision for change was included, Schropfer was not convinced. “I remain concerned about the longterm liability of the bylaw,” he reiterated. “I don’t know if anyone went to the last Town Meeting, but they are not easy things — they are not places where you can depend on change.” Wind committee member Leslie Morse defended the committee’s decision to include the level of specificity that it did. “I think it is terribly technical,” she said, “but I think we felt it was necessary in part because Eastham is so dense. Consultants need some sort of standard to do noise studies, because any turbine this big will impact people and we are trying to protect the public the best we can.” Selectmen were also looking for answers to other technical questions; namely, definitions for tricky technical terms like “L90” and “shadow flicker.” The board proposed holding a public workshop with the planning board and the wind committee in order to go through the rationale of the document and better understand the more technical sections. “It would be great to get this information out to residents before Town Meeting so that people aren’t asking ‘What’s a shadow flicker?’ that night,” said Selectman Martin Mc Donald. Selectmen were also interested in the rationale behind the setback siting standards outlined insection D2 of the bylaw. The bylaw establishes the minimum setback distance for commercial turbines as whichever is greater between three times the blade tip height or 1,000 feet from the nearest residential property line. Committee chair Thomas Reilly explained the committee’s rationale, saying, “We took into account that people use more of their property than simply the residence. They are entitled to the same accommodation and quality of life outside in their yard as inside their house.” The proposed by-law also called for special permitting for any wind facility over 60 kilowatts, site plans and visualizations from three to six vantage points for any proposed turbine, and landscapes, operation and maintenance plans. As outlined in the bylaw, no wind turbine is to be higher than 400 feet and a safety zone with a radius of 1.5 times the turbine’s height would surround it, with no residences allowed in that area. Turbine color, lighting, and other aesthetic standards were also outlined. Environmental standards set forth included mitigation of noise, land clearing, soil erosion and habitat impacts. While discussion stayed on topic for the most part, there was some anecdotal debate over the potential of commercial wind turbines in Eastham. “I stood under the wind turbines at Hull ,” said Selectman Ken Collins, “and I can’t comprehend the noise factor because I heard the noise, and there was no noise.” Wind committee member Andrew Wells, pointed out that it is “very difficult to make conclusions based on a person’s anecdotal experience” as turbine noise can be complicated by a vast array of factors including meteorological andtopographical influences. It wasclear that the debate could have gone on. Before adjourning, selectmen voted 5-0 to accept the report under advisement.

Selectmen will mull over new turbine bylaw proposal