ZBA allows wind turbine on Madigan Lane

November 16, 2007

At a Nov. 7 hearing packed with wind energy proponents, the Harvard Zoning Board of Appeals heard evidence largely in support of Steve Nigzus’s plan to install a wind turbine to supply power for his Madigan Lane farm. In June, Nigzus was denied a permit to construct the turbine after Building Inspector Gabe Vellante found that Harvard’s zoning did not allow it. Nigzus appealed the decision on the grounds that state zoning law, Chapter 40A section 3, allowed the structure for agricultural use. After hearing the evidence, the ZBA agreed with Nigzus, reversing the denial and asking Vellante to issue a building permit for the turbine.

Agreement, however, took more than two hours, as the board examined the state law in minute detail, discussed the topic in general, and took comments and questions from the audience. By the second hour, some grew restless as the board questioned whether the turbine would create more energy than might be used for the farm. Unused energy from turbines is almost always returned to the power company, National Grid, for credit.

“There is no pirate market for any excess energy that I know of,” declared Agricultural Advisory Commission (AAC) member and Oak Hill Road resident Al Combs.

John Sweeney, a member of the Wind Energy Conversion Systems Committee and a Madigan Lane resident, tried to dispel the concern that excess energy might deliberately be created, saying that “energy is fungible” and that the variable winds translated into a range of energy production.

“There is precedent,” said Gerry Palano of the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources, citing similar turbines in Westport and Amesbury.

In the end, the department’s letter of support and Palano’s comments at the hearing carried weight with the board.

“We did ask [Nigzus] if the wind turbine was [an] accessory [use],” Palano said, adding that his department was satisfied that the main goal of the turbine was to support the farm. “If we saw someone trying to abuse this [law], we wouldn’t support it. Our support of this project is not a rubber stamp.”

The board’s focus on so-called excess power was aimed at a pivotal point in the argument: whether the turbine was an accessory use for the property. That is, would the turbine be used in support of farming?

Town attorney Mark Lanza framed the question for the board. The turbine would be allowed by statute, he said, if the board decided that the turbine was an accessory use to the farm, and that the farm qualified as “commercial.” If those conditions were true, Lanza said, the turbine would be exempt from Harvard zoning and allowed by state law. Churches, schools, and other institutions fall into the exempt category and as such are subject only to “reasonable regulation” from the town.

Joseph Sudol, a member of the Planning Board, spoke from the audience in support of regulating the machines, noting that the Planning Board has appointed a wind energy study committee to explore a bylaw for that purpose. Currently, Harvard does not have a turbine bylaw.

Steve Strong, a Harvard resident and nationally recognized expert on renewable energy, warned against what he thought might be undue regulation. The chance of a turbine falling over in Harvard is “exceedingly remote,” he said. He also said that to be effective, a turbine must be 20 to 25 feet above the tree canopy, so height regulation must be approached cautiously.

Attorney Lanza summed up, stating that “The amount and type [of regulation] to be placed on the exempt use is less than that allowed for a nonexempt use.”

Sudol agreed that most of the regulation would need to reside in the new bylaw, which would apply to nonexempt agricultural and residential uses.

This week, Nigzus said he wants to begin construction of the roughly 120-foot turbine as soon as the permit is issued. He awaits a $22,000 grant from the state’s Renewable Energy Trust fund, which will help defray the $60,000 cost of the project. Nigzus said he hopes the machine will generate between 6,000 and 8,000 kW hours of energy per year. The farm requires at least 5,000 kW hours per year, he estimates.

Related Posts

Go toTop