| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Supporters, detractors gear up for Bourne turbine bylaw review
Credit: Bourne Courier, www.wickedlocal.com 8 March 2011 ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
The Bourne Energy Advisory Committee’s Wednesday night meeting into proposed changes to the town’s Wind Energy Conversion Systems bylaw has been cancelled.
Energy advisory members, just 24 hours before a Bourne Planning Board hearing into a citizen-petition warrant article that would amend the zoning bylaw governing review of turbine proposals, had planned to discuss the New Generation Wind proposal off Scenic Highway.
Also set for discussion was the new Cape Cod Commission wind-turbine threshold promulgated under development of regional impact regulations.
Both the citizen-petition article and the commission threshold for new land-based turbine proposals would have impacted Tudor Ingersoll and Sam Lorusso’s plan for seven turbines to be built off Scenic Highway and Route 25.
The New Generation Wind special permit application, however, was withdrawn last week from planning board review in town and Cape commission scrutiny in Barnstable. Ingersoll said the permit application would be re-filed.
Planning board chairman Chris Farrell said his board would provide “open-minded” review of the petition, which is headed to the May 2 Bourne Annual Town Meeting warrant.
Town Planner Coreen Moore, meanwhile, said the proposed citizen-petition amendment of the town’s turbine control bylaw is “comprehensive and detailed;” perhaps to the point the planning board would have to engage professional consultants to review any future proposal.
“I think you’d need a consultant weighing in on review and on enforcement of any complaints if they arose about non-compliance – especially related to noise – of any future turbines, if that amendment is accepted,” Moore said Tuesday.
Moore said she likely would be able to review turbine setback factors “but not some of the other issues that would arise. The other side of this is that no turbine proposal would probably be able to be located in town given the distance and setback requirements proposed.”
Moore said the citizen-petition item is so restrictive in one sense that Ingersoll and Lorusso might be able to situate one structure on their tracts, but not seven.
Ingersoll and Lorusso retain options. They could re-file for permits with their current plan or redesign the proposal and then seek permit approval. They could reduce the wind-farm dimensions and opt for another variety of green energy on their land; perhaps solar power options.
The turbines arguably, however, would still have to be 495 feet in height to the tip of the blades in order to harness wind at the Bournedale site north of the canal.
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
| Wind Watch relies entirely on User Funding |
 (via Stripe) |
 (via Paypal) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=6626 ]
