Belknap Point wind turbine decision delayed for want of expert testimony
By Adam Drapcho
THE LACONIA DAILY SUN
GILFORD — Hearing last night the case of the waterfront residents who wish to place a wind turbine on the non-waterfront portion of their Belknap Point Road land, the Zoning Board of Adjustment decided to continue the matter until its next scheduled meeting. However, Chairman Andrew Howe said at the conclusion of the meeting that he isn’t leaning in the applicant’s direction. Referring to two of the five criteria applicants must satisfy to achieve a variance from zoning restrictions, Howe said “I struggle with the hardship, I struggle with [whether] granting the ordinance will do substantial justice — I think they’ve got a long way to go to convince me that they’re going to meet all five of these.”
Representing her clients, Lorraine and Richard Lavalliere, Laconia attorney Regina Nadeau explained to the board that it is an accepted use to place a wind turbine on their property at 62 Belknap Point Road. However, their technical consultant advised them that they should construct a tower at least 52 feet in height to make best use of the availablewind as it sweeps from the north across Lake Winnipesaukee.
Gilford’s zoning ordinances state that wind turbines must be set back from property lines by a distance equal to or greater than 150-percent the total height of the turbine system, including tower and blades. Because of the shape of the property, the only suitable location for such a tower, adhering to the setback requirements, would be along the shorefront. Instead of placing it on the shorefront, Nadeau told the board that her clients wished to locate the tower behind their tennis court and before the stand of trees that fills the back of the lot. She said this placement, on the highest point on the lot, would produce more energy than on the shore and would be visible only by one neighbor instead of everyone who boats past Belknap Point. At that point, though, the turbine would be greater than the 110-percent setback recommended by state guidelines but less than the more restrictive setback adopted by Gilford.
When asked by board member Ellen Mulligan why the town chose a 150-percent setback, Code Enforcement Officer Dave Andrade explained “when the town started hashing out what [setback] to utilize, we didn’t have a whole lot of information.” The state required each town to enact ordinances permitting wind energy systems and limited towns to a maximum setback requirement of 150-percent. Andrade explained that the town, when writing the ordinance, was cautious about issues such as shadow flicker, sound and the dangers of ice and broken propellors flying off the systems. “There’s a lot of unknowns, so what they did was take the maximum setback for liability reasons and say we did the best we could.” There were a lot of unknowns at the meeting last night as well. Without a technical consultant present, Nadeau couldn’t answer questions from the board such as how loud the system would be from the nearest property boundary, how fast the turbine spins, how far ice or a broken propellor would fly and if the proposed site was the best location on the lot for a turbine. “I think it’s fair to say in a residential area as affluent as it is there, the public interest there is peace and quiet,” noted Howe.
The board ultimately decided to continue the matter until its meeting on Oct. 27. In the meantime, they requested that the applicants hire an independent engineer to study whether the proposed location on the lot would indeed be the best in terms of energy production. Many board members also indicated they would travel to Hill, where a similar turbine has been constructed on private property. A couple of abutters spoke during the meeting. Alexandra Breed asked “are there any maintenance issues?” She noted that the Lavallieres spend much of the year in Florida, and she worried that the year round residents would endure an eyesore if something happened to the turbine while they were away. Dick Hickok, the one abutter who Nadeau said would be able to view the turbine from his property, said he would prefer if the turbine was allowed to be built at 52 feet, because the noise would be diminished compared to a shorter rig. He also said he’d prefer if the turbine was constructed on the shoreline, so it would be further from his property.
Hickok noted that there was a risk living near such a device, especially when it flings ice or if it should let loose a propellor. “It’s a crapshoot — if the think breaks at the wrong time, its going in my house, it’s going the distance,” he said.
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/