Wind hearing continued
Although the Planning Board declined to offer a wind energy bylaw of its own for the Annual Town Meeting, Harvard residents will be able to vote on an alternate bylaw created by a group of interested citizens. On Monday, the board held a public hearing to discuss the citizen-created bylaw, which would allow wind turbines of up to 140 feet on residential lots as an accessory use. The board will vote whether to endorse or recommend against the bylaw at the conclusion of its next public hearing, which will be held Monday, March 17, at 8 p.m. The bylaw will be on the warrant, regardless of the board’s position.
About 10 proponents attended Monday’s hearing, where they fielded questions from planners. John Sweeney, who spearheaded the petition drive that landed the bylaw on the warrant, answered questions with the help of others in the audience, including Ruth Silman, Eric Broadbent, and Steve Nigzus. Nigzus has a permit to build a wind turbine on his farm on Madigan Lane, granted under a state regulation that allows turbines as an accessory agricultural use.
One objection shared by all the planners at Monday’s hearing—Joe Sudol, Peter Brooks, Barbara Brady, and Leo Blair—was that turbines up to 140 feet would be allowed by building permit, not special permit. A special permit would be required only for systems that fell outside parameters set out in the bylaw. Brooks said he would be more comfortable with the special permit process, but could not say whether the issue would affect his vote.
From the audience, Paul Willard suggested that the board endorse the bylaw as it stood, noting that the systems are self-limiting, owing to wind conditions and expense.
“If the town is flooded with applications, then we can change the bylaw a the next town meeting,” he said, prompting chuckles from the board and audience.
Acting Chairman Joe Sudol asked the most questions, acknowledging that he was opposed to the bylaw as it was written. Citing his years of experience in the field of power generation, Sudol said that turbine power in Harvard makes no sense. Viewsheds would be compromised, he said, and the power generated negligible.
“It’s a fool’s argument to say [the turbines] would make a difference,” he remarked. Proponents quickly let Sudol know they thought he was missing the point.
“It’s a statement of personal taste as well as economic benefit,” said Sweeney, adding that some people might choose a turbine in anticipation of hard times. Joyce and Bruce Gallagher of Still River Road urged planners to look beyond the viewshed for the sake of Harvard’s next generation.
“Why would the occasional turbine be any uglier than rows of power poles?” asked Joyce Gallagher.
And why, demanded Bruce Gallagher, are planners focusing on the view when a different kind of vision is what Harvard needs?
“The last natural resource we have are the school children…we must be able to look the children of this town in the eye and say, ‘We tried’.’’
He said Harvard’s quaint look is irrelevant if we continue to burn carbon heedlessly. “Planners who are focused only on the view need to go back to science class,” he stated. “The science I’m reading demands that we push the envelope here.”
