TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

 

October 7, 2004

Approved October 20, 2004

 

Commission Members Present:  Jean Isham (Chair), Carrie Fenn, John Buckingham, Joe Iadanza, George Bedard, Nancy Norris, Johanna White, Daniel Greller.

 

Commission Members Absent:  Fred Haulenbeek.

 

Also Present:  Alex Weinhagen (Town Planner), George & Karla Munson, David Blittersdorf, Bill Marks, Margery Sharp, David Fenn.

 

The meeting began at approximately 7:35pm.

 

NRG Wind Turbine Discussion:

David Blittersdorf gave a detailed explanation of NRG System’s proposed wind turbine to be located on the top of the hill behind their new facility.  They are seeking a “certificate of public good” from the Public Service Board (PSB), because the turbine will be a net metered system.  This permit review process is the same as the one they already went through for the net metered solar panels.  The tower will be a 12” wide tubular design that is 97’ tall.  The rotor diameter will be 23’.  Given that the existing tree line is about 40’ high, only the top 60’ of the tower will be visible.  He plans to remove only a small swath of trees to allow the tower to be assembled on site and raised into place.  He said this tree removal won’t be very visible from Route 116 given the orientation.

 

The power line to the turbine will be buried along a narrow trail from the tower to the rear of the NRG facility.  This trail will be wide enough for an ATV, but will not be a road.  David is working with the Quinvilles at the top of Bittersweet Hill to secure access for the tower/turbine installation.  David said the noise from this turbine will be less than 50 decibels, and that NRG will pay for the first $500 of a noise study if anyone voices noise concerns.  He said he has the same turbine on a 120’ tower at his home in Charlotte.  He said that turbine is 180’ from his bedroom window, and that it cannot be heard at that distance.

 

Dan asked if the Federal Aviation Administration will require a light on top of the tower.  He also asked if David had plans for additional turbines at this location.  David answered no to both questions.

 

John asked about the necessary guy wires to stabilize the tower.  David said the tower will have 2 sets of guy wires: 1st set at about 40’; 2nd set just below the turbine.  He said the wires are ½” steel cables, and that they are not very visible from a distance.

 

Dan asked why the tower was approximately 100’.  David explained that it would be better to have a higher tower (more wind), but that there isn’t enough room for the required guy wires on this site.  David said the turbine has to be higher than 80’ because of air turbulence caused by the hill.  David also said that the tower will be painted a satin gray to help it blend in.

 

Bill Marks asked why NRG is putting it up in the 1st place.  David said it is for 2 basic reasons: 1) business philosophy and connection to their business; and 2) serves as a hedge on future energy cost increases.

 

Nancy asked if there were problems with birds.  David said small turbines like this one don’t pose any issues, especially at lower elevations.  He said the only problem he has seen is when birds actually nest in the turbine itself.  Margery Sharp asked if the turbine would become a kind of tourist attraction.  David didn’t think so, especially since access to the turbine would be difficult.

 

Carrie suggested writing a letter of support to the PSB.  John MOVED to send a letter of support.  Carrie SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 8-0.

 

Updating Visibility Analysis Map:

Alex and Bill explained the existing visibility map that was prepared by GrassRoots GIS in 2001 via the Commission’s rural areas project with Burnt Rock Associates.  Alex explained that staff uses the map to help when reviewing subdivisions on higher or hilly terrain in the rural areas (see Subdivision Regulations, sections 5.1.3, 6.10.6, 6.10.8 3d).  Bill explained that the map only included visibility from major paved roads, and that it would be more useful if it also included the major dirt roads.  He got a quote of approximately $850 from GrassRoots GIS to update the map.  He said that the Conservation Commission is committed to contributing at least $300 toward this.  He also said that he discussed the project with the chair of the DRB (Tom McGlenn), and that he was very supportive of having more and better information for the development review process.

 

Nancy expressed concern that maps like this seem to imply that no development should be seen in Hinesburg.  She felt that such a requirement would be bad idea.  There was general consensus that improving the map was a worthwhile project.  However, George and Jean instructed Alex to contact GrassRoots GIS to clarify the final cost (with map plotting fees) and determine if the digital data/maps would also be included in the product.

 

Municipal Planning Grant (FY2005) Project – Outreach to Possible Partners:

Alex asked for suggestions on people to contact within possible partner organizations for our Village Growth Center project.  Various housing advocacy and development groups were discussed.  The Commissioners gave Alex a list of names to contact within some of these organizations.

 

Minutes of the September 15, 2004 Meeting:

George MOVED to approve the September 15, 2004 meeting minutes as amended.  John SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 8-0.

 

Other Business & Announcements:

The Commission briefly discussed the following:  NRG Open House on 10/13; DRB work session update; CCTA policy on involvement in municipal transportation projects; Regional Public Transportation Initiative (RPTI) open house on 10/13.

 

The Commission also discussed the Northwest Vermont Project sponsored by the CCRPC and the Agency of Transportation.  Hinesburg needs to identify a representative to serve on the steering committee.  Commissioners were hesitant to commit without knowing if the monthly meetings would be during the day or in the evening.  Alex volunteered to be the representative, but will report back once meeting dates/times have been set.

 

Johana MOVED to adjourn.  John SECONDED the motion.  The motion PASSED 8-0.  The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:30pm.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

___________________________________/____________

Alex Weinhagen, Town Planner               Date