Fitzwilliam Zoning Board of Adjustment
October 13, 2009
Members Present: Steve Filipi, Chairman, Jane Roberts, Gretchen Wittenborg, Cathy Davis.
Others present: Carmen Yon , acting Selectmen’s representative, and abutters.
CTO: 7:00 PM
Public hearing: Veterans Victory Farm application for a special exception under 127-14 E.(1) to construct a wind tower on property located at 85 Pierce Road, Map 2, Lot 11, Rural District.
Filipi gave the applicant the option to postpone the hearing until a full board could be convened, noting that three votes would be needed to approve the appeal. The client, Pablo Fleischmann, representative for the Victory Farm, agreed to proceed with a Board of four members.
Mr. Fleischmann, owner of Green Energy Options of Keene, presented the case. He said the Victory Farm came to him requesting a wind generator to provide back-up power for the Farm. They received a grant to build a wind generator. The proposed generator is a one kilowatt generator with a nine foot diameter sweep blade on a 50-60 foot monopole. The pole will be mounted in concrete without guy wires. He wants to install a 50 foot tip-up pole because it will be easier to maintain for the Farm. He added that the Farm did not want him to conduct a thorough wind study prior to installation because they needed the back up before winter. This installation will produce about 2500 kilowatts per year and it will be tied to the grid to generate credit for the Farm. It will not completely
offset their electricity bill, and the wind generator will not be connected to a battery back-up. That will be a separate installation. The installation maximum decibel level is rated at 50 decibels at 10 feet.
The property is a 78 acre lot with a house, several outbuildings, a green house and pasture land. It is a working farm. The boundaries are thickly forested and the wind generator will be located in the open pasture as high on the land as possible. Mr. Fleischmann did not have a complete sketch of the property with setbacks delineated for the Board. Using an old survey map from the assessment file, he guesstimated the location of the tower, saying that the tower will probably be more than 100 feet from the boundaries, adding it is not an advantage to be near the trees. The Board expressed concern that there was no dimensional information or details of the tower, as promised, for them to consider. The ordinance clearly states that a wind machine is allowed in any district by special exception
as an accessory use, provided that the ZBA “finds that the wind machine is set back from all lot lines at least the distance equal to the height of the tower from its base on the ground to the highest extension of any part of the wind machine.”
Mr. Fleischmann said he thought the hearing was primarily for the Board to hear abutters’ comments. Board members were concerned about making a decision based on so little information. Filipi said he would be OK with the tower location being drawn on the map, indicating the general area in which it will be placed, knowing that it may have to be moved slightly for construction reasons. He said he’s be comfortable if setback minimums and tower height maximum are indicated.
Davis asked if the Board wanted to reconvene after the numbers have been decided. Filipi said this is not a small 3 or 5 acre lot, and by identifying the area and setbacks the tower placement is confined to a small area.
Wittenborg identified the plan from which the sketch was made as being from a preliminary survey done by Vorce, Soney and Associates October 8, 2002, on a scale of 1” = 200 feet. Mr. Fleischmann signed the sketch after indicating the area in which the tower will most likely be located and guaranteeing the dimensional minimum for setbacks (75’) and maximum for tower height (60’). He noted the tower will be 50 or 60 feet tall with an additional 10 feet or less for the blade on its mounting.
Filipi asked if this was enough information for the Selectmen to issue a building permit. Yon said no, that drawing will need accurate dimensions. He encouraged Mr. Fleischmann to ask the code enforcement officer to review the site prior to pouring concrete.
Filipi asked if there were any other questions from abutters. They indicated they were satisfied. Davis moved, Roberts seconded and the Board voted to close the public hearing.
Wittenborg moved, Davis seconded and the Board voted unanimously that approval is contingent upon the height of the tower plus the blade and mounting being no higher than 70 feet maximum.
Mandatory Findings by the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment shall not issue a Special Exception unless, without exception, it shall find that the proposed use:
1. Is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. The Board agreed unanimously. Wittenborg noted this is an allowed use with a special exception and Filipi said it is an environmentally friendly installation that benefits town, state and country.
2. Will not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is to take place. The Board agreed unanimously. The Board said that with the forest buffer it will be hard for neighbors to see the installation and at 50 decibels it will not be a nuisance factor.
3. Is appropriate for the site in question. The Board agreed unanimously. They agreed that it is appropriate since it is located on a 78 acre lot in a very rural neighborhood.
4. Complies with all applicable requirements of this chapter. The Board agreed unanimously. They said it does meet the special exception requirements set forth in ordinance 127-14 E. (1).
5. With respect to dimensional requirements establishes that there exist special conditions that make the meeting of these requirements unduly burdensome. The Board agreed unanimously that this criterion is not applicable.
The special exception is granted with the above height condition and based on the attached sketch.
Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes of the September 8, 2009 meeting. A spelling correction was made. Davis moved, Wittenborg seconded and the Board approved the minutes as amended.
Members expressed concern over the lack of specific information on the application in this case and in others. They wondered if their regulations should be amended to allow for acceptance of an application as complete, prior to hearing a case. This client filled out the application, promising more detailed information at the hearing and did not provide it.
Wittenborg moved, Roberts seconded and the Board vote to adjourn at 8:10 PM.
| 
