Harvard residents challenged the amendment to the Protective Bylaw proposed by the Planning Board to establish an overlay district permitting residential wind turbines and passed their own amendment to take no action on Article 38 at Annual Town Meeting May 2. Speakers argued that the proposed amendment was too restrictive and the special permit process that would be required was, in one resident’s words, “prohibitively expensive.” Citizens urged the Planning Board to draft a new bylaw in time for Annual Town Meeting next year.
—Bruce Gallagher
In response to resident concerns, Joe Sudol, chairman of the Planning Board, said, “The bylaw doesn’t impose unreasonable design, legal or application costs. The planning application for the wind turbine special permit would be consistent with a special permit for a shared driveway.”
Mike Taylor, of Still River Road, objected to the proposed amendment because the cost of land and topographical surveys would be expensive. He added, “Depending upon the acreage of the plot, one is looking at a cost of over $10,000.” He suggested that the special permit process comprise several steps so that “the applicant does not have to spend large sums up front, only to be rejected.”
Bruce Gallagher, Still River Road, was a member of the group that drafted the citizens’ petition which also would have amended the Protective Bylaw and which failed to pass at the 2008 Annual Town Meeting. He suggested that the Planning Board draft a bylaw that was less restrictive and more supportive of residents’ desire to convert to alternative energy use. “We need to be more proactive,” he said. “This [making alternative energy sources difficult to develop] is not something I want to teach my children.”
Gallagher said he understood why some residents are worried that wind turbines could “detract from their views,” but argued that the bylaw was “unrealistic” because it prohibited the use of wind turbines in residents’ front and side yards. “Wind turbines are a social investment and some residents have hills in their side yards which could be used to convert wind energy.”
Sudol reassured residents that a “mini windmill” that does not use traditional rotors and stands only 30 feet in height would not be prohibited by the bylaw proposed by the Planning Board. “Any resident in Harvard could install these devices today under our current bylaws by applying for a building permit from the building inspector with no involvement of the Planning Board.”
Sydney Blackwell, Willow Road, expressed concern that the town would not be able to vote on a new wind turbine amendment for two years if they voted against Article 38. Town Counsel Mark Lanza said, “Chapter 48, Section 5, if rejected, cannot be considered for two years unless the Planning Board recommends it or the bylaw is substantially different.” Blackwell made the motion, which carried, that residents “take no action” so that a new bylaw could be drafted that was less restrictive and had a better chance of passing.
When asked if the Planning Board would draft another amendment to address citizens’ concerns, Planning Board member Kara McGuire Minar responded, “It is important to craft a wind turbine bylaw that has the consensus of residents, and that means while recognizing the critical need for energy alternatives we balance those needs with the legitimate rights of abutters regarding noise, safety, and setback concerns.”
Sudol said the Planning Board would assemble a group of residents with various expertise and interests to sit with the board and discuss the issues raised by both sides. He added that this group would “work together to develop a set of recommendations that could be supported by the entire community.”
