2026-10-19 - City Council and Planning Board Joint Meeting

04:05Mhm.

06:07>> Mhm.

07:03>> A joint public hearing of the Salem City

07:05Council and the Planning Board was held

07:08in person in the City Council Chambers,

07:10City Hall, 93 Washington Street in

07:12Salem, Mass on Monday, October 19th,

07:152026 at 6:00 p.m. in accordance with

07:18Chapter 40A, Section 5 of the

07:21Massachusetts General Laws for the

07:23purpose of discussing an ordinance

07:25relative to zoning, roof mounted wind

07:28energy systems ordinance,

07:32as shown on the agenda, and this

07:34ordinance shall take effect as provided

07:36by the city charter.

07:38Notice of notice of this hearing was

07:40posted on September 30th, 2026 at 3:09

07:44p.m. It was also advertised in the Salem

07:47News on October 7th and 14th.

07:50Councilors absent are Councilors

07:52Pasquini,

07:54Sydoriak, Hepworth, Smith, and Davis.

07:58Council President Merkle presiding, and

08:00of note, Councilor Varella has joined

08:02remotely. I will now turn it over to

08:05Kurt Reader, the Planning Board Chair,

08:06to take attendance.

08:08>> Thank you, Council President. Uh Uh with

08:10the planning board tonight, we have Zach

08:12Counter, Helen Sides, Graham Wing, Josh

08:15Turiel, Sarah Tarbet, and myself. We

08:17have a quorum.

08:19>> Thank you.

08:20We will now hear from Councilor King,

08:23who will give a presentation, and then

08:25we will allow councilors and planning

08:27board members to ask any questions.

08:30And thank you, everyone, and welcome.

08:38>> All right, thank you all. I'm just going

08:40to start screen sharing the presentation

08:42here.

08:55All right, and you all um in the room

08:57have copies of this on your desk, as

08:59well. So, thank you. Thank you all for

09:01coming. Um this is just a presentation

09:04to help um just address the high level

09:06of why we are doing this. Um what what

09:09does wind energy and rooftop wind energy

09:11specifically mean potentially in Salem?

09:14And then, I also do have some examples

09:17um towards the end of the deck of uh

09:18example type of systems, and we'll talk

09:20a little bit about the ordinance

09:21language itself.

09:23Um so, yes, just here's here's that

09:25agenda uh for folks in a little bit more

09:27detail.

09:29So,

09:29I'll hop right in. Um so, why why why

09:33are we talking about rooftop wind energy

09:34here in Salem? Um so, in general, Salem

09:37as a community does have our

09:39long-standing commitment to uh climate

09:42justice and overall clean energy in this

09:44community. Um through projects like the

09:47Resilient Together uh project uh between

09:49Salem and Beverly, we've made these

09:50long-standing commitments that we want

09:52to be a cleaner, greener city. Um also,

09:55uh innovations like our uh specialized

09:57code for new buildings and things like

09:59that. So, this is kind of in line with

10:01that overarching goal that we have as a

10:03community.

10:05Um through looking at our zoning

10:06ordinance ordinances though, you'll

10:08notice that um we really don't talk

10:11about rooftop wind anywhere in our

10:14zoning ordinance. We talk a lot about

10:16rooftop solar. That is very clearly

10:19zoned for in our zoning ordinances.

10:22Um, and we talk quite a bit actually

10:23about um,

10:25uh, wind facilities. So, built a

10:27ground-based wind facilities or um, as

10:30we all know the offshore wind terminal

10:31and that. But, we don't talk about what

10:34really uh, this ordinance is all about,

10:35which is small rooftop wind energy meant

10:38for small residential and commercial

10:40spaces. It's really meant for

10:43um, that individual homeowner that just

10:44wants to have something else in their

10:46toolkit um, or a small business perhaps

10:48that wants to have something else in

10:49their small uh, their toolkit. This is

10:51what this is all about.

10:52Um, the

10:54we'll talk a lot more about like why

10:56wind in general, but the the big selling

10:58point for wind is that

11:00uh, wind operates at times when solar

11:02doesn't operate as well. So, solar does

11:04really well during the day, during peak

11:06sunlight hours, um, also during our

11:08warmer months. Um, whereas wind does

11:11better at night, does better during the

11:12cold months like the winter. Um, and

11:14they just work well together when you

11:16pair them together so that you can

11:18really capture um, as much possible uh,

11:21clean energy time during the day

11:23um, at your at your home or your

11:25business.

11:28So, I I wanted to add this cuz I've uh,

11:30in the process we've been having this

11:31conversation at least in the city

11:33council for a few months about rooftop

11:35wind energy and a number of people have

11:37pointed out to me, "Hey, didn't we do

11:39that once in Salem?" There is a little

11:41bit of history here. Um, we did actually

11:43do a pilot um,

11:45which I don't think was legal in our

11:46zoning, but we did it because it was a

11:48cool idea I guess at the time. But, in

11:492012 we did a pilot on the South Salem

11:52Harbor Garage uh, right at the

11:54intersection of Derby and Congress

11:56Street where we actually it was Verizon

11:57installed three um, it was a they were

12:00solar and wind rooftop terminals

12:03together. Um, and it was a it was a a

12:05pilot program and generally was

12:07considered very successful um, and and

12:10very quiet and people were really

12:12excited about it. Most people who I've

12:13talked to were like, "Oh, yeah, there

12:14was that cool pilot we did. Whatever

12:16came of that?" Um, to be honest, all I

12:18was able to find was the Salem news

12:19article talking about how cool it was as

12:21a pilot. But, I do want to just mention

12:23that this is not something that's

12:24entirely a new concept here in Salem. We

12:27have had some rooftop wind here before

12:28as a test. There's also been tests all

12:30over Massachusetts. Um, the Museum of

12:33Science in Boston, they ran a really

12:35cool test back uh around 2011, where

12:37they had a couple different uh rooftop

12:40wind systems, and they were comparing

12:41them and things like that. So, um that

12:44that's definitely something we've done

12:45before.

12:46Um, we when we talk about wind as uh as

12:52a total type of uh a resource, right? A

12:55sustainable resource for us.

12:57Um,

12:58the big thing that it comes down to is

12:59something called wind resources, which

13:02means like how much wind do we actually

13:04get?

13:05Um, in many cases, solar is a lot more

13:08straightforward to think about because

13:09it's like, "Does the sun shine on your

13:11house?"

13:12A lot more [snorts] straightforward to

13:13measure how much solar potential your

13:14property has.

13:16Um, it's also a lot easier to measure,

13:17you know, like, "Okay, my you know, my

13:19building faces this direction, so I

13:21should put it on the west side or east

13:22side or south side of my building,

13:23whatever it may be." Um, wind resources

13:26are a little bit more nuanced to measure

13:29and require um you know, good data on

13:31how much wind could your area of the

13:34city or your home get. Um, luckily, in

13:37Salem, we had um

13:39back in 2007, there was a study done by

13:41UMass Amherst researchers looking at

13:44Salem for what is our wind resource.

13:48That's the term we use, wind resources.

13:49So, how much wind do we actually get in

13:51Salem, and would we be a good candidate

13:53for

13:54uh land-based

13:55uh

13:56wind terminals, basically? Wind uh

13:58windmills or things like that. Um,

14:01so that research it was looking I will

14:03say I will just note that it was the the

14:05research was looking at more

14:06utility-sized wind energy. So, 30 m tall

14:10to 70 m tall. So, the the actual wind

14:13amounts on this slide are not accurate

14:15to what a residential property would

14:16get, but in terms of scale, that's why

14:19I'm bringing it up because there's

14:20certain areas of Salem that are much

14:22better

14:23uh situated for better wind production

14:26than other areas. So, and the way that

14:28this study worked is that the city was

14:31actually involved, partnered up with the

14:33uh the researchers at UMass Amherst. I

14:35have the link to the the study down at

14:37the bottom there.

14:38Um and the city had suggested a bunch of

14:41locations. So, the researchers looked at

14:43those those main locations, and then

14:45they kind of also built a map for the

14:47neighborhoods around those locations. Um

14:49from those locations, it was really

14:50clear that the number uh one and two

14:53best spots in Salem to uh generate wind

14:57energy was around Winter Island area and

15:00around Forest River Park. And that

15:02really has to do with just how on the

15:04coast those those spots are in Salem.

15:07>> [snorts]

15:07>> Um it's not as clear on this map, but if

15:09you look at the later maps for lower

15:11height uh versions of wind energy, 30 m,

15:14um it's also very clear that the Castle

15:16Hill neighborhood is a really good

15:18candidate for wind energy, the

15:20um where the Bertram Bertram Field is

15:22and Salem Hospital is a good candidate

15:24for wind energy, and um it's not

15:26actually pictured on this map because of

15:28the locations that the city gave to the

15:31researchers, but I would assume that

15:32also like Mack Park Farm, on another

15:35area that's kind of elevated, would also

15:37be a good candidate.

15:38I bring this up because that the reality

15:40is that implementation of anything

15:43related to wind energy will be very um

15:47limited to who actually who can actually

15:49justify it, right? Like I think solar is

15:51just a lot easier to justify for a lot

15:52of people.

15:53Uh

15:54there's also a lot more incentives for

15:56people to get solar, financial

15:57incentives, but there are some places in

16:00Salem, especially along the coast and in

16:02higher elevation areas, that this could

16:05be for individuals a really good choice

16:08and option for them. I don't think it in

16:10most in a lot of parts of Salem, I don't

16:13think it will necessarily always be a

16:14cost-effective choice, but in some areas

16:16it could be really really good.

16:19Um so Salem as a whole, I just wanted to

16:21talk a little bit a little bit about

16:22like why why should Salem be a candidate

16:25for this?

16:26Um

16:27rooftop wind is not I know I mentioned a

16:30couple examples in Massachusetts earlier

16:32in the presentation, but rooftop wind is

16:35not a super popular thing in the United

16:37States as a whole. It's a lot more

16:39popular in Europe. You mostly [snorts]

16:41see pilot programs in the United States

16:42just to be honest.

16:44Um

16:45why do I think Salem would be a good

16:47candidate even though it's not a super

16:49popular program in the United States?

16:51Um it has to do with these these

16:52features. So Massachusetts um

16:56we obviously have a lot of solar

16:57programs, but Massachusetts compared to

17:00a lot of other parts of the United

17:01States does not get as much sun as other

17:04parts of the United States.

17:06Um especially you know you're thinking

17:07the south and areas like that. I would

17:08say like that applies to a lot of the

17:10north uh northeast and and other

17:13northern parts of the country. Um so

17:15that's one example of you know why we

17:17need to be thinking about other things

17:18that also help with solar. We um also

17:21obviously have strong winters with a lot

17:23of wind. Um that also contributes to our

17:26ability to possibly have uh rooftop wind

17:29be a nice supplement to a good solar

17:31program.

17:32We also are a coastal community. The US

17:35Department of Energy has basically said

17:36that coastal communities are the areas

17:38that should be prioritizing wind. Um not

17:41just the big offshore wind farms, but

17:42also things like rooftop wind. These are

17:44the areas where that is most likely to

17:46be a successful option.

17:49And then finally in Salem, we have done

17:51this amazing thing by passing the

17:53specialized code which has these really

17:55strict requirements for new buildings

17:58that get built in Salem to basically be

18:01a lot closer to to carbon neutral. Um in

18:04doing so, it does make it a lot harder

18:06to build new buildings in Salem.

18:09Um and when doing so, you know, some

18:10developers depending on the space that

18:13they're using um solar just might not be

18:15enough, right? For them to reach the the

18:17level of uh green and clean energy that

18:20they need involved in their project. And

18:21that's why having wind as an option is

18:23something that

18:24depending on the location could really

18:26make a project that wouldn't otherwise

18:28be able to come to life, come to life.

18:30So this just gives

18:32builders another tool in their toolbox

18:33essentially and homeowners another tool

18:35in their toolbox.

18:37Um on that.

18:39So challenges of rooftop wind. So I

18:41wanted I wanted to like get ahead of

18:43these cuz I think that they're

18:44there's definitely some challenges with

18:46this as a concept. Um so I've talked a

18:50lot about this first one. Basically

18:52solar is

18:54a lot of the time a more cost-efficient

18:57and

18:58even like energy-efficient option,

19:00right? It's just for [snorts] a lot of

19:02properties solar is going to be for the

19:04investment that you have to put in to

19:05getting any sort of energy system up

19:08there on your roof, solar is going to

19:09have a higher output a lot of the time.

19:12Um that just again has to do with

19:14people's location where they live and

19:16also what subsidies are available in the

19:19in the through the Mass Save program

19:21through US programs as well. Um so that

19:23that this really I say this to more

19:25coming out like this is not meant to be

19:26like a wind versus solar. It's really

19:29meant to go working together and the

19:31reality is for many people solar will

19:33still be the number one choice that they

19:34pick if they can only pick one and some

19:36people might pick both and some people

19:37depending on their space might pick wind

19:39only.

19:40Um another thing is and we just talked

19:42about this in the last couple of slides,

19:43but that the wind resources of your

19:45specific location are going to heavily

19:47determine whether or not you can

19:48actually do any type of wind if

19:51efficiently, right? So it's whether or

19:52not your property and the spot that you

19:54want to put it actually can produce that

19:56wind will matter a lot to the

19:58individual's ability to implement this

20:00cost efficiently for themselves.

20:02Um another thing that definitely came up

20:04the city council had a committee meeting

20:06on this where we talked a lot about our

20:07potential concerns

20:09and something that came up was potential

20:11noise from rooftop wind and then also

20:15vibrations, right? When a rooftop wind

20:17device is at its peak wind, like what

20:20what does that mean for vibrations?

20:21Could it be vibrating and things like

20:23that. I have some examples in the next

20:25couple slides of actual devices.

20:30Really what I've learned through this

20:31process, I'm not from an energy

20:33background or clean energy background

20:34myself. So a lot of this relatively new

20:36to me, but there are a lot of different

20:38varieties of options when it comes to

20:41rooftop wind. Some that are really good

20:44at addressing those noise and vibration

20:46concerns head-on. So we'll talk about

20:49that.

20:50Another thing is the structural

20:52integrity of your roof required to be

20:55able to have a rooftop wind device. So

20:58when you think of solar and solar going

21:00on a roof, solar panels are obviously

21:03heavy. They weigh They weigh something,

21:05but they're a lot more evenly

21:06distributed across your roof, the weight

21:09of those pieces. So the the way that

21:11your structure of your roof needs to be

21:12prepared for that is just very

21:13different.

21:15More similar to snow, for example.

21:18With a rooftop wind device, these

21:21devices can range They've a really wide

21:23range of weights. I have some examples

21:25that are like 40 lb per device and some

21:28that are 1,000 lb per device. There's

21:29just a lot of different options with the

21:31the weight of the device. And having a

21:35large amount of weight centered in one

21:37spot on your roof changes the the

21:40requirements of the structural integrity

21:42of your roof. So that is something that

21:44is definitely something we need to

21:46consider when we're thinking about how

21:47do we implement something like this.

21:50Battery storage is something that we

21:51always have to consider when we're

21:53talking about this type of you know,

21:55it's the same with solar and with wind,

21:56right? Obviously energy will be gathered

21:59up during the times of the the day or

22:00night that the this is working its

22:02hardest and then that battery needs to

22:04be storing that energy while you're then

22:06using the energy throughout the day. So

22:07battery storage really important for us

22:09to consider

22:11just from a safety fire perspective as

22:13well.

22:15And then finally, in Salem of course, we

22:17also have to think about you know, the

22:18the visibility of these things when

22:21they're in a really visible location or

22:22in a historic neighborhood,

22:24do we allow them? How do we allow them?

22:26How do we make sure that it fits into

22:27the neighborhood? So these are

22:29the challenges as I see them that I

22:31think we all

22:34are trying to consider as we go through

22:35this process. I have some thoughts on

22:37some of these later, but that's

22:38that's been my summary of those as I as

22:40I see it.

22:42I will say because I mentioned this is

22:45you know, these rooftop wind

22:47devices are just not super

22:50widely used I would say in the United

22:53States.

22:54We have looked a lot internationally

22:56like what other countries are doing and

22:58there are a number of European countries

23:00that have just had you know, huge

23:03explosions and innovation in the small

23:05scale rooftop wind style systems.

23:10Especially Germany, Spain, the

23:11Netherlands have all been like big

23:12leaders in this industry.

23:14A lot of them and I'm going to go

23:15through a couple of examples, but

23:16they've really focused on these turbines

23:19that are like vertical axis spiral

23:21shapes, bladeless systems, things that

23:23really focus on

23:26addressing those concerns on that

23:27previous slide regarding the the space

23:30they take up, the noise they make and

23:32any possible vibration. They're really

23:33trying to get ahead of those issues and

23:36trying to make a version of rooftop wind

23:38that is you know, people are really

23:40comfortable with and feel good about

23:41being in their neighborhoods.

23:43So let's I just have a couple examples

23:45of those

23:47that I think are fun and cool. So this

23:49one this one is one of my favorites.

23:50These are the flower turbines. So they

23:52are tulip shaped vertical axis turbines.

23:56They can be used individually.

23:59You will notice this throughout the

24:00presentation that

24:02we throughout the part where we talk

24:04about some possible turbines.

24:06Generally speaking turbines do work

24:08better together like having a couple of

24:10them together always makes them more

24:12efficient. So that's something that when

24:13we you know, are looking at this

24:15language we should consider a little bit

24:18how we want to think about that. But

24:19either tulip shaped vertical axis

24:21turbines.

24:22They go to gathering groups

24:25and when they're together they get a lot

24:26more efficiency.

24:28There is a picture up here of them cuz I

24:30know pictures everyone loves a picture.

24:31Their total height, which is I know one

24:34of the big things folks are thinking

24:36about is about 4.6 ft. So almost almost

24:405 ft tall.

24:42And then their total weight per device

24:45is 44 lb. But obviously if you're

24:47putting multiple devices together on

24:49your you know roof that would be the

24:51total weight would be a little bit more.

24:53So this is just one of those examples

24:56that is these are really I think that

24:57when they the group that designed these

24:59they were really thinking about

25:00aesthetics. Like how do we make prettier

25:02looking turbines, right? That's the

25:04flower shape.

25:06This is a really cool one. It's called

25:08the the Archimedes Liam F1. They have a

25:11full size one and then a mini one. The

25:14dimensional standards I have up here are

25:16for the the mini version. So these are a

25:20three-dimensional spiral spiral rotor.

25:23So you can kind of see [snorts] on the

25:25picture like literally looks like a like

25:28a like a shell

25:30a shell spiral. It's inspired by the the

25:33Archimedes spiral the one that you know

25:36in math and science that's very famous.

25:38This one was specifically designed to

25:41address the noise level concerns

25:43associated with rooftop wind. So the

25:46noise level for this one is 45 dBA which

25:49is comparable to like a household

25:52refrigerator. So a light a light hum

25:54basically but it's not meant to be too

25:56loud.

25:57This one is it's about two and a half

26:00feet across. I actually couldn't find a

26:02specific height measurement but it is

26:04round so I think it's probably not more

26:05than like 3 ft tall. It's pretty

26:07similar. And then it weighs about 70 lb.

26:10This is one that usually I see installed

26:13as just an individual one not

26:15necessarily with a group.

26:16But that's another example that is is

26:18very pretty and very quiet.

26:21Um

26:21And then this last one

26:23the Aeromine motionless 5000 Aeromine

26:275000 is the other word for it. This is

26:30uh these are really cool because there

26:31are no rotating blades at all. There's

26:33no movement on this device that is

26:36uh visible. No nothing exposed. It's uh

26:38basically everything that's happening is

26:39happening inside of the device.

26:41Um, they are best used in groups of 10

26:45or more on a large rooftop. So, when I

26:47look at this piece, it's actually um and

26:49it it get it's a little tall. It's like

26:51uh it's like 8 ft tall basically and

26:53they weigh about 1,000 lb. Um, these

26:55would be something that I would imagine

26:56more I actually put it in there on like

26:57a Target or a Walmart roof. Like

26:59something that a commercial property

27:01might have as a way of um you know, they

27:04have a huge roof a lot of those

27:05properties. They're pretty high off the

27:06ground and they often have a lot of

27:08their um roof that is like not even

27:10exposed to uh where pedestrians are,

27:13right? The part of the roof that's in

27:14the back where the shipping containers

27:16are, for example. Um, and this is this

27:18would be a great uh

27:19a product to go on those types of roofs

27:21and really just uh

27:23be able to help those businesses offset

27:25their energy costs and then also, you

27:27know, offset the

27:29carbon emissions of the other energy

27:31sources that they're using today. So,

27:33that's another example. I will say I

27:34didn't make a slide for it, but I just

27:36was while I was doing the research um

27:38I also found this group of uh

27:41rooftop ones that just so reminded me of

27:43Salem that are called pass-through

27:45rooftop wind um devices. So, for folks

27:49that ever go on Front Street, you know,

27:50Front Street, there's those buildings,

27:52the beautiful historic townhouse-type

27:53buildings where like the coffee shop is

27:55and everything and they all have those

27:57nice um chimneys between each one and

27:59they all have the pretty roofs that go

28:01up and they have that that point in the

28:02top. And so, the way these pass-through

28:05ones work is that part of the roof

28:07between the chimneys, you would add like

28:10a foot and a half or 2 ft to that and it

28:12would all be one long wind turbine and

28:15it basically just pass through, right?

28:17Right through the very top windy part of

28:19those buildings and it fits right in.

28:21Like it really I I couldn't get a

28:23picture up quick enough. Um, but they

28:25they do look really cool and they I

28:27think would that's an example of

28:28something that could fit in really

28:29nicely in our historic town uh city.

28:33Um, and still have the the rooftop wind

28:36option, so.

28:37Those are some examples.

28:39Um, and as my last slide, I just wanted

28:41to because I know we all have the exact

28:42ordinance language in front of us.

28:44Um, the ordinance language is obviously

28:47a little bit of we

28:48a little confusing because it's just

28:50like, oh, we're going to change this

28:51thing by adding this word. And then

28:52unless you have the full context of the

28:54full language we are changing in front

28:55of you, it's a little hard to interpret.

28:57So, I thought I would just summarize the

28:59four sections of the ordinance in front

29:01of us for folks.

29:02Um, so the first section, that is the

29:05part that most people will probably

29:06recognize. That is the part where we

29:09just change the the zoning chart,

29:12uh, the table. And it basically, the way

29:14it's written right now is it makes roof

29:17mounted wind energy systems allowed by

29:20right in all of our different zoning

29:22types. So, that's that section.

29:24The second section is the section where

29:25I got the most questions because I think

29:26people were most confused about what

29:28what we were referencing in the

29:29language.

29:31So, the second section, uh, it does two

29:33things. The first thing it does is it

29:35adds a 10-ft setback from the front,

29:39side, and rear lot lines for any, uh,

29:43piece of rooftop wind. And that was, um,

29:45we basically just had it match

29:47uh, solar in that situation. So, we just

29:49added it when it says like solar needs

29:51to have a 10-ft setback, we just added

29:52wind to also have that same 10-ft

29:55setback. So, that's the first part of

29:57section two.

29:59And then the second part of section two

30:01is, uh, we have set a,

30:04uh, basically a cap on how tall the roof

30:06mounted wind energy system can be, um,

30:09in relation to the max height of the

30:11building. So, if the maximum height of

30:13the buildings in that zone are 50 ft for

30:16example,

30:17what this says is that the, uh, the

30:20height of the wind system on top of the

30:22building can be no more than

30:2550 ft plus five. So, it's like it

30:27basically the idea what we were going

30:28for was that we don't want it to look

30:30anything different from like a chimney,

30:31right? Just something that looks like a

30:32little bit higher than the roofline, but

30:35not actually significantly higher than

30:36the other buildings in the neighborhood.

30:38Um so, that's basically what that

30:40section means. The third section talks

30:43about restrict It's a bunch of

30:44definitions, but um the the key one that

30:47I think most people have been paying

30:48attention to is it then sets

30:50restrictions on the device itself. Um

30:53one restriction is that the device can

30:54do no more than 10 kW.

30:57Uh like the name rated nameplate

30:59capacity can be no more than 10 kW per

31:01device.

31:03And then the height of the device itself

31:06from base to the top is highest point

31:09total can be no more than 20 ft. So, uh

31:13just to pay cuz we've had some confusion

31:15about this. Um

31:16so, to pair that [clears throat] part

31:18about height in section three with the

31:19part about height in section two, if you

31:22are, you know, in a in a in an area that

31:25the buildings can be no taller than 50

31:27ft

31:28>> [snorts]

31:28>> and you install a

31:30you know, let's say you have a 15-ft

31:32tall wind turbine or whatever. Um you

31:35could install the 15-ft tall wind

31:37turbine starting at 40 ft going up to 55

31:40ft. So, you're just going 5 ft over the

31:42total height of the buildings in the

31:43neighborhood. You could install it no

31:45higher than that, though. You'd have to

31:46find a spot to install it low enough on

31:48your building to make sure it doesn't go

31:49higher than that. Um and if you live in

31:51an area where your building is already

31:52really close to that top height roof

31:55line, then you're just going to have to

31:56install a smaller wind system, basically

31:58one that's shorter. That That's

32:01basically what that's doing. Um and then

32:02the last section, it just is

32:04differentiating these roof-mounted wind

32:06energy systems from the land-based wind

32:09energy facilities in section 6.9, which

32:12are uh like that's more of a large

32:14facility you would think of like the

32:16offshore wind that we're talking about

32:17and things like that. Just

32:18differentiating those cuz they're

32:20different. Um

32:22The only other thing I wanted to note

32:23because I talked a lot about things like

32:26noise.

32:28Just now I talked a lot about noise. I

32:29talked a lot about um

32:32like what does it mean in a historic

32:33neighborhood? We talked about batteries.

32:36The council did not include of that

32:39language relating to noise or historic

32:43districts or batteries in our initial

32:46approach to this to this zoning language

32:49for for a couple reasons. In the case of

32:51noise

32:52we basically were operating under the

32:54assumption that our noise ordinance may

32:57be adequate to cover noise that

33:00that I'm open to interpretation on that

33:01one. We could add more language about

33:03noise, but that was what we were doing

33:04at the time.

33:05We basically assumed that maybe our

33:07noise ordinance will cover what we need

33:08to cover here as it relates to noise.

33:11With the idea of a historic district and

33:14how this would impact our historic

33:16districts here in Salem,

33:18we today solar has to go through a

33:21certificate of appropriateness process

33:23with our historic commission and from

33:25what I can tell with MGL Chapter 40C

33:29that would most likely also apply to

33:31rooftop wind. So I think that there

33:32would still be a historic commission

33:34review in this process.

33:36But again, if we want to get more strict

33:37about that we can. That was why we just

33:39that's just why we didn't put it in

33:40initially. And then I forgot to write

33:41anything about battery storage here in

33:43the deck, but

33:45my understanding is that there is some

33:47updates being made to battery storage

33:49policy at the state level and that our

33:51sustainability department is actually

33:53planning to bring in some language about

33:56battery storage in the near future. So

33:58we I don't it didn't make really sense

34:00to touch that when that's an ongoing

34:02parallel process basically. Those are

34:05the the big ones that I feel like we

34:06could have addressed and we just didn't

34:07for those reasons, but again open to all

34:09sorts of feedback on this.

34:11But yeah, that is what I have for

34:14presentation. Any questions?

34:16Here we go.

34:18Great.

34:19>> And thank you for the presentation.

34:21I am going to start with questions from

34:23the counselor and the counselors and I'd

34:26like to check in with counselor Varella

34:28to make sure he's hearing us online and

34:31and we can hear him.

34:33Counselor Varella, do you have any

34:35questions?

34:37>> I do. I I more have a statement. Can you

34:38guys hear me?

34:42>> Hold on a moment. We're not quite

34:43hearing you.

34:48>> No problem. Can you hear me now?

34:50>> Yes. Yes, we can. And did you hear the

34:52presentation clearly?

34:53>> I did. Loud and clear. The presentation

34:54was fantastic. Thank you so much. I

34:56heard everything.

34:58Uh so, again, thank you

35:00uh for this conversation. And thank you,

35:02Counselor King, for the presentation.

35:05Uh

35:05this my statement's more of a comment

35:07for uh tonight. I do believe that when

35:10it comes to this

35:13uh ordinance and zoning ordinance

35:15related to wind energy,

35:18I do think it's uh a step in the right

35:20direction.

35:21Um I understand that, you know,

35:22something like wind energy might not be

35:24the uh

35:26the priority of the state and the city,

35:28but that shouldn't mean that we should

35:31not allow residents to

35:34to do something that would put

35:35resiliency in their own hands uh by

35:38allowing them to put up a wind energy

35:41system. So,

35:42uh I hope, you know, I I look forward to

35:45seeing what the planning board has to

35:47say about recommendations, but I do

35:50think that this is something that we

35:51should allow going forward.

35:54Um and to see where this conversation

35:56goes. Thank you for your time.

35:59>> Thank you, Counselor. Any other

36:01questions? Counselor Halappa.

36:05>> Thank you, President Merkel.

36:07Um Counselor King, thank you for the

36:08presentation. Planning Board members,

36:10thank you for joining us. Uh this is an

36:11exciting topic. I'm excited to see this

36:14uh this move forward. I'm grateful for

36:16the process that we've gone through with

36:17this. Like Counselor King mentioned,

36:18this is the this is not the first

36:20meeting we've had on this.

36:22Uh and beyond, of course, the

36:23recommendation and the insight from the

36:24planning board that we're able to

36:25benefit from from this uh from this part

36:27of the process, there's been an

36:30opportunity for many of our residents to

36:32tune in and read up on some of this and

36:34get their feedback as well. Uh and I

36:37have not gotten a ton of feedback in

36:39full transparency, but I have gotten

36:41some positive feedback. And one of the

36:43pieces

36:44uh

36:45you know, throughout this process every

36:47now and again we'll find some niche

36:48situations when we're doing any sort of

36:50ordinance or zoning ordinance. And so, I

36:52did find one. A resident brought it up

36:55to me. They live in an R2 and their

36:57building has a flat roof and they are at

36:59the height maximum.

37:01>> Mhm.

37:01>> And they're really interested in this.

37:03And so, I did some digging myself,

37:05right? And then we were talking about

37:06the height limitations. We talked about

37:08how as it's written right now, there'd

37:10be an allowance for an additional 5 ft,

37:12which may be helpful for some buildings.

37:14I'm skeptical on this one.

37:16So, I did a little bit more digging our

37:17zoning code and there is, of course, uh

37:19for folks who are familiar uh a a um

37:23a paragraph, I'll say, a subsection that

37:26it limits the height restrictions for

37:29certain parts of buildings. I'm going to

37:31read out what they are. Spires, towers,

37:34chimneys, broadcasting and television

37:36antenna, ventilators, roof-mounted solar

37:39energy systems,

37:40and decorative stuff. So, you know,

37:43[clears throat] as my thought perhaps

37:44for the planning board's consideration

37:46is do we think that rooftop wind energy

37:49systems are significantly different than

37:50all of those in here that it is

37:53appropriate to limit them instead of

37:55adding

37:56roof-mounted wind energy systems to this

38:00exemption as well.

38:02Um

38:03something to think about. Thank you.

38:06>> Thank you.

38:07Uh Counselor King.

38:09>> Thank you, uh President Merkel. Um I

38:12just wanted to address the Ward 6 um

38:13counselor suggestion. Uh I and give a

38:16little bit of context to the planning

38:17board. Um we actually when we initially

38:20brought this language in, um we actually

38:23had rooftop wind in that section with

38:27all of the other items that are There's

38:29like no height requirement uh applies.

38:33But we also had that paired with the

38:35actual total height for rooftop wind

38:38devices on their own being lower. We had

38:41that at like It was like 10 or 15 ft and

38:44then um we didn't have a height

38:46requirement. So, that was like an

38:47offset. We basically were like, "Well,

38:48what if we made the devices themselves

38:51uh, have a higher cap up to 20 ft, and

38:53then we were like, "We'll offset that by

38:55then putting a height restriction

38:56against the the total height of the

38:58buildings in the neighborhood in the

38:59zoning." Um, that was just the trade-off

39:00we went with. I think either I think you

39:02could go either way, personally. I think

39:03you could do you could go back to what

39:05we kind of originally had, um, or you

39:07could do this, and as long as there's

39:09some devices on the market that could

39:10fit in it, I think you're kind of

39:12meeting your requirements there.

39:14>> Thank you.

39:16Councilor Flynn.

39:18>> Thank you, President Merkle.

39:20Thank you for the presentation. Um,

39:22appreciate and thank you for the

39:23Planning Board being here.

39:25Um, it's I I find it all very

39:27interesting,

39:29but I think we should really be careful

39:31in how we do an ordinance, uh, related

39:33to this because

39:35um, it ultimately will change the look

39:37of Salem,

39:38um, if we're going over some of the

39:40height limits.

39:41And if there's any, uh, neighbors that

39:43might not be in favor of this. So, I

39:46think we got to be really careful how we

39:47proceed. Um, a couple of concerns

39:51as were mentioned there, obviously the

39:53noise,

39:54um, how that would affect, uh, for the

39:56people that don't have these structures

39:58on the house.

39:59Um, I'm I'm pretty concerned about the

40:02stability of something, uh, on the roof

40:05like this, um,

40:06especially during storms and, uh,

40:09different types of weather that could

40:11cause something to either fall off a

40:13roof or

40:14or damage other people's properties.

40:17And, uh,

40:18one of my biggest things is how this

40:20would look,

40:22um, in historic neighborhoods,

40:24in basically in all neighborhoods, um,

40:27how that would look on top of a roof cuz

40:28I think it's it's definitely a different

40:30look than a chimney or a spire or

40:32anything like that. Um, I look forward

40:34to the input of the Planning Board. Um,

40:37I have a lot of respect for the Planning

40:39Board, and I believe your input, um,

40:43will greatly be heard here. Um, I know

40:45when you,

40:46um, allow new projects in the city, look

40:49very carefully

40:50if these will fit

40:52in our city. I think that's important

40:54because you know, something could be

40:56here for 20, 30, 40 years, much longer

40:58than we're going to be here. So, we want

41:00to make sure we do something right and I

41:02always notice that the planning board

41:03does consider that

41:05when they move forward their projects

41:07and I and I thank you all for that. Um

41:10I also think in the ordinance as was

41:13mentioned we should probably have

41:16something addressing the noise even

41:19though it may be covered in our noise

41:21ordinance. I I I think it should be

41:23covered in this ordinance as well. I I

41:26don't like to go by may or could. I like

41:29things written down so people know what

41:31to expect when we put something on our

41:34city and on our neighbors.

41:37Ultimately, I want to get as much

41:39feedback from the specifically ward four

41:41residents that I represent and those are

41:44the residents that

41:45will guide my decision in deciding on

41:49voting on this.

41:50But, also a big part of this is the

41:52input of the planning board because I I

41:54know you you will do the right thing and

41:57and consider all aspects. Thank you.

42:00>> Thank you.

42:04Councilor Turosky

42:06Thank you President Merkel. Thank you

42:08Councilor King for bringing this

42:09forward. I think it's really important

42:10that we consider

42:12as much renewable energy as we can

42:14especially given the coastal climate

42:17crisis that we're in right now and we're

42:18certainly an area that's ripe for

42:20harvesting wind

42:21Um

42:23My primary concerns with this I I wasn't

42:26able to make the last meeting where we

42:27discussed this in depth but I know there

42:30was some talk about building permitting

42:32and ensuring that the structural

42:33integrity of the building was

42:36sufficient to support

42:37especially a very tall structure.

42:40Um

42:41I I wondered if there's any plan to

42:44monitor

42:46installations after they're installed

42:48because we're in made in environment

42:50where things degrade very quickly. Um, I

42:52don't know if any of the models you

42:54proposed have been tested in marine

42:56settings or or perry marine settings

42:57with like salt air

42:59um, and corrosion

43:01um, cuz I know you I think you said a

43:02lot of them are European. Um, I don't

43:04know if that's like inland European

43:06versus coastal European.

43:08>> I I think a lot of those are coastal,

43:10not all of them, but I think a lot

43:12because like I said, like it's just not

43:14always um, you need to be in a pretty

43:16specific set of circumstances for this

43:18to be an efficient wind energy system

43:20and I I think a lot of times that is

43:22that happens to be coastal communities

43:23where it is most efficient.

43:25Um,

43:26but I I think we should we can look more

43:28into it also, but um,

43:30and then I will just note uh, on the the

43:32building inspection piece of it um, we

43:35def- that talk that was discussed a lot

43:37at the meeting, you're right. Um, I

43:39think that uh,

43:41one one thing we were talking about is

43:42just like whether or not it makes sense

43:44to put into a zoning ordinance

43:46requirements for building inspection

43:48like if that's the appropriate spot cuz

43:50I agree I think that there should be

43:52something like that.

43:54It it's more of a like what is the what

43:56is the best path forward for that if

43:57that's something where we should work

43:59with our building department to just

44:00have, you know, procedures in place or

44:03if we need to maybe have a another

44:05ordinance that comes along that's not a

44:06zoning based ordinance that's about I

44:08don't know. Like I'm not really sure

44:09what the right mechanism was, but that

44:10was the point at the time is we're like

44:12I don't think zoning's the place to put

44:14that type of stuff, but we could we

44:15could. I'm very open to that if the

44:17planning board has ideas on that one,

44:19yeah.

44:19>> I mean it may be something that's better

44:20addressed by like a a parallel ordinance

44:22to define some standards.

44:25Cuz this isn't like a solar panel is

44:27great, but you know, you put it in, it's

44:29flat, it doesn't move in a wind. It's

44:31basically a lever with rotating parts

44:34um, and a heavy one um, and I look at a

44:36lot of the roofs around here and I think

44:38you know, if we make this you know, it

44:40might look good today, but 10 years down

44:42the road I think one of the models you

44:44proposed specifically said that annual

44:45inspections are required

44:47um, and I just wanted to make sure that

44:49we're not um,

44:51forgetting to keep an eye on these

44:52things as they age and mature um just to

44:55make sure that there's not um problems

44:57downward um down the line.

44:59But overall, I think I do I do think

45:01it's a good idea.

45:02>> Great.

45:03>> Thank you.

45:05Any other questions? Uh Counselor

45:06Halappa.

45:07>> Thank you, President Merkel. Uh just to

45:09build off of what some other counselors

45:10were saying, I I

45:12definitely agree there's concerns around

45:14noise and structural integrity. And I'm

45:16really interested in folks' perspective,

45:18especially the the planning board's

45:19perspective on

45:20not only how we make sure that this

45:22ordinance is like being careful with

45:24those things, but how we can find the

45:26way to make sure that folks that are

45:27interested in doing this in their homes,

45:30if they are if the the requirements that

45:33we're setting up are going to exclude

45:35some people from doing this, how do we

45:36make sure that they are clear of that as

45:39early on in the process as humanly

45:40possible. These things can be tens of

45:42thousands of dollars, not to not even

45:45including installation and maintenance

45:46fees. I just want to make sure that if

45:48someone is is willing to put the money

45:50and time into figuring this out, um that

45:52we're not penal- they're not getting

45:54penalized because we didn't uh we didn't

45:56realize something or we didn't do the

45:57diligence that maybe uh we didn't

45:59realize we had to. So, the more

46:00perspectives we can get on this to help

46:02with that the better. Thank you.

46:04>> Thank you. Counselor um

46:06uh

46:07Counselor Varella.

46:12>> Okay, thank you.

46:14Uh so, I wanted to

46:16wanted to approach a couple of things

46:17that were brought up by counselors.

46:19Uh the first one being the situation

46:22about uh the load of

46:25said uh structure or wind turbine on a

46:30roof. Uh you know, those those are going

46:32to be handled through permitting.

46:34I feel confident that our building

46:36department would do that correctly. Uh

46:39when you put a dormer or an addition on

46:42your home, you're required to go through

46:45code review and uh through a structural

46:48engineer as well to make sure that

46:50things are ample uh and sufficient when

46:53it comes to the load uh for your

46:56proposed situation. In this case, it

46:58would be a wind turbine. So, I'm not too

47:01worried about that. That'll be handled

47:02through the building department.

47:04But, the one thing I wanted to approach

47:05was when the conversation about

47:09in the historic district,

47:11when it comes to any kind of of

47:14renewable energy in a

47:17historic district, there is language and

47:20guidance through 40A section 3

47:23establishing

47:25the purview of a historical commission.

47:27I do believe that

47:30a wind

47:31turbine would take legal precedent with

47:34a

47:36with a solar panel.

47:38And so, I I think that we got to be

47:40careful about this conversation.

47:42There is a law

47:44you know, making sure that when it comes

47:47to

47:48what the purview of the historical

47:50commission can be,

47:52they are slighted by

47:54renewable energy. And I do believe that

47:56wind turbines would be in the same

47:58thing. I do believe that a certificate

48:00of appropriateness in a historical

48:02district for said proposed turbine would

48:04be appropriate.

48:06It would dictate where it could be

48:08placed, but an outright ban would not be

48:10appropriate. So, I think all these would

48:13be handled through general law.

48:16And I I believe that you know, when it

48:18comes to and a review, it can be done

48:21reasonably in a historical district.

48:23Thank you.

48:25>> Thank you.

48:29>> Thank you, President Merkel. One other

48:31thing I wanted to ask

48:33before anything, if it ever did move

48:35forward, any feedback from fire

48:37prevention

48:39or the fire department.

48:41Specifically,

48:43the storage battery storage, which is

48:46something that is very important if we

48:49respond to a house fire.

48:51And the location on a structure,

48:53there might be some feedback from the

48:56department where they think

48:58it might be best located on a building

49:01so it wouldn't get in the way of any

49:03type of fire fighting operations.

49:05So I just think their feedback or at

49:07least have them involved in somewhat

49:11that could their specialty and their

49:13guidance and expertise um

49:16definitely could help with something

49:17like this.

49:17>> I agree. Thank you. We will we'll reach

49:19out to them. Thank you.

49:20>> [snorts]

49:21>> Thank you. Any further questions from

49:23the council?

49:25Seeing none, I will now turn it over to

49:27Chair Reader for follow-up questions

49:29from the Planning Board. Oh, I'm sorry.

49:31Counselor Varella, Counselor Varella.

49:35>> Thank you, Council President. I just

49:36wanted to respond through you to that

49:38last comment about review from a fire

49:41department and the battery storage. So

49:44right now through general law in the

49:46state, the state has guidance about

49:48battery storage

49:50and what's appropriate.

49:52I believe that maybe in the future the

49:54city of Salem will further review and

49:58whether restrict or add other additional

50:00rules. But when it comes to battery

50:03storage as of now, there is

50:06there is guidance from the state for

50:09safety and fire prevention concerning

50:11battery storage. Thank you.

50:14>> Thank you.

50:15Any further questions from the council?

50:18Seeing none, I now turn it over to Chair

50:20Reader for follow-up questions from the

50:22Planning Board.

50:24>> Thank you, Council President.

50:26Any board members will go with Josh.

50:30>> Thank you. The uh

50:32couple of things that I I I think

50:34conceptually I'm I'm on board with this.

50:38But

50:39um

50:39there's a couple of things that probably

50:41should be defined better and I'm not

50:43sure if we can find them within and stay

50:46within the four corners. So

50:49that I'll leave that as kind of an open

50:51question that we should probably resolve

50:52before we move forward on the legal

50:55side. One is I do think the ambient

50:58noise standard should be defined within

51:01this for the for these add-on devices.

51:07And I don't know what that standard

51:09needs to be, but it probably should be

51:12defined if we can do it legally within

51:14this.

51:15Um another one is on the structural and

51:18inspection side, and this came up a

51:19little bit in the council's questions.

51:22But these are devices that are

51:24mechanical, they are moving, they are

51:26vibrating, they are affecting the

51:29potentially affecting the structures to

51:31which they are attached. So that should

51:34be part of the inspection process.

51:38And I would say that any installation

51:41would have to be signed off on by the

51:44building inspector.

51:45That should be

51:48I'm not sure if we have to specify that

51:51or if the permit that would be part of

51:54the permit process. That part I'm not

51:55certain on, but it that does need to be

51:58covered. As far as like devices that

52:00require, for instance, an annual

52:02inspection, I'm not so concerned about

52:04that because that's if you're installing

52:06it,

52:08it's incumbent on you, the installer, to

52:10the the person who's installing it to

52:13comply with any maintenance requirements

52:16for that device in order to keep it

52:18active, working, and safe.

52:20I don't think the follow-up inspections

52:23in that sense should be the city's

52:24responsibility. That should be

52:27like the same way you have somebody come

52:29and check out your furnace every year or

52:31so before the season or your air

52:33conditioning system, you would need to

52:36maintain your your power generation. So

52:39I do believe that just following the

52:41recommended maintenance schedule is

52:43should be sufficient from that

52:45standpoint.

52:46Um

52:48And beyond that

52:50the only other thing that really comes

52:52by, I don't know given the cost

52:54differences, given everything else, and

52:57the way Salem is kind of

53:00put together,

53:01um I don't really know how many of these

53:04we're going to actually see on small

53:07residential properties on single family

53:09and and double deck double and triple

53:11decker homes.

53:13Um there are probably good opportunities

53:16to add these to some of our taller

53:17buildings in the city. Um

53:20>> Salem High School would probably put

53:22that in the building that's over on

53:25over on first over behind Market Basket.

53:28That I forget the name of that.

53:30Those couple of larger buildings.

53:33Those are

53:34um downtown on Charter Street where the

53:37uh you know, in the Salem Housing

53:38Authority's buildings.

53:40Those are probably where we'd wind up

53:42actually seeing most of these installed

53:44on your taller buildings where you have

53:46a little more height.

53:47And within that

53:50um the other the one other question from

53:52a definition standpoint, right now

53:55things like chimneys and antennas and

53:59non-structural

54:00components of buildings are generally

54:03not included in the calculation of

54:05height.

54:06So, the question would be do these even

54:09need to be regulated in that sense or

54:13you know, should it be a fairly loose

54:15definition that allows somebody to put a

54:18small

54:20like the like the ones that were on the

54:22South Harbor garage for many years.

54:25Those were just put there because they

54:26were they weren't really part of the

54:28structure. They were just added on.

54:31So,

54:32in that sense it might be something

54:34that's already more or less allowed

54:36because of the nature of these things.

54:38So,

54:39those are the things I'd like to see us

54:41try and whittle down better.

54:44Um and in particular that if we can get

54:47guidance from legal on the uh you know,

54:50on whether we can add the noise

54:51definition to that and perhaps specify

54:54the that these do have to be signed off

54:56on by the building inspector as part of

54:58installation.

54:59Um that those are the only real major

55:02out and out concerns that I have.

55:05>> Thank you, Josh. Others? Helen?

55:09>> Um a a couple of things. Um

55:12noise is actually less of a concern to

55:14me given the fact that everybody is

55:16installing condensers on their houses

55:19now.

55:19>> Mhm.

55:20>> Um and that's a lot of noise, so

55:23Um this is up on the rooftop. Um I agree

55:26with Josh that I think this is much more

55:28serious commercial

55:30Um and to new construction.

55:33Um

55:34it this would be something that was

55:35integrated into their overall

55:38power so that

55:39Um we do we do review

55:42>> Apologies, could you just speak into the

55:44mic a little bit more? Your head was

55:45>> Um we do review carefully things on

55:48rooftops um and try to be very careful

55:52about their visibility and that sort of

55:54thing, condensers.

55:55Um the other question I have is when it

55:58when you state that it's only

56:00specifically

56:02attached to a rooftop, why couldn't it

56:04be a mast?

56:06You know, why couldn't it be up against

56:08the house? Why couldn't it be I mean it

56:10would seem that then the electricity

56:13could be within a conduit that is the

56:15mast. The electricity could be brought

56:17down to the ground level instead of

56:19attached to the side of the building. I

56:21don't like the idea that these things

56:24are creating more panels on buildings

56:27like the solar panels that end up

56:30They're really ugly and particularly in

56:32our neighborhoods and things in our

56:34historic neighborhoods, it's not going

56:35to be easy for these things to be

56:37approved by the historical

56:39Not easy. It's taken a long time. Um

56:42it's viewed very carefully with

56:44absolutely every application. Um they

56:47don't have full oversight uh in terms of

56:50it being covered by

56:52That's an energy

56:54uh

56:55you know, that it's waived. It's not

56:57going to be that way. So um

57:00every single house that is installing

57:02air conditioning and is putting those

57:04conduits on their buildings that

57:06connected Um a lot of them are now

57:09applying to the commission to get

57:11approval after the fact. So,

57:14this is this is something to really

57:16consider. Aesthetically, I don't like

57:18the idea of these being put on pitched

57:21roofs all over the city.

57:22I don't really can't picture that and I

57:25don't like the idea that they could be

57:28any one of these

57:30versions. I almost feel like you'd have

57:32to, especially in the historic

57:34neighborhoods, come up with particular

57:36ones that are then acceptable. So, and

57:38of course that's going to change over

57:40time. Um so, but I'm absolutely in

57:43support of anything that um provides

57:46more source,

57:47sources of alternative energy.

57:50Um I also think it's probably needs to

57:52be connected to some kind of pilot

57:54program. I don't know how individuals of

57:57houses would afford to take that risk to

57:59start something new. So, I wondered if

58:03the intention of this is to um have

58:06Salem be um

58:08um a point of focus for the state, you

58:11know, to that there could be some I

58:14seem to me that there'd be need

58:15[clears throat] to be some kind of

58:16funding sponsored um the attempt to use

58:20these.

58:21Thank you.

58:21>> Okay. Can I answer that?

58:23>> Thank you.

58:24>> Uh yes, Counselor K.

58:25>> Okay, thank you. Um

58:27all all great points, first of all. Um

58:29>> [clears throat]

58:30>> um

58:30as for the just to your first point

58:32about being roof mounted, honestly, I

58:35that just was based on like the devices

58:37I was seeing. It seemed like roof roof

58:39mounted was the the standard for those

58:41those smaller commercial and residential

58:43size properties, but

58:45um I I'm I'm hypothetically open to it

58:48not being specifically roof mounted. Um

58:50I we do get into four corners area with

58:53that. I'm not sure uh if if we could

58:55change it, um but um and with both that

58:58comment and with the uh comment from um

59:02Planning Board member Turiel regarding

59:03uh adding noise, I do think just changes

59:06in the definitions would be the places

59:07for those types of changes to

59:09>> [snorts]

59:09>> to be the closest to staying within the

59:11four corners and

59:12with the the

59:14note about the restrictions on the

59:16noise. I think it's very Personally to

59:18me, I'm not a lawyer, but to me like the

59:20the whole point of the back half of the

59:22wind energy system roof mounted

59:23definition is to put restrictions,

59:25right? It's baked into it is

59:26restrictions. The 10 kW per turbine, the

59:29height up to 20 ft, and adding a noise

59:32no higher than, you know, 45, whatever.

59:35I I think it could potentially work, but

59:37obviously up to the city solicitor and

59:38whether or not that is appropriate. Um

59:42to the other question about a pilot

59:43program, I I don't have I don't know

59:45where to find that type of money right

59:46now, but it's a good idea. I do agree

59:49that I think it's similar to like when

59:51the city of Salem passed the ADUs and

59:53that was paired with like a

59:55basically money to help incentivize ADU

59:58production for a couple of years. Um I

59:59think that would be awesome. I I know

1:00:02that our our our executive branch has

1:00:05talked a lot about being in favor of

1:00:07clean energy and wind energy and um I

1:00:09read a lot of articles that quoted the

1:00:11lieutenant governor today from like 2012

1:00:13and 2011 that were all about how excited

1:00:15she was specifically about these

1:00:16programs and that program on the south

1:00:19at the south harbor garage. So,

1:00:22I don't have that in mind right at this

1:00:24moment, but I think that would be a

1:00:25great idea and and something we can

1:00:26definitely look into. Um yeah.

1:00:29>> Other board members.

1:00:31>> Graham.

1:00:35>> Um thank you for the presentation and

1:00:37all the information that I think a lot

1:00:38of us weren't fully aware of before with

1:00:40the variety of options out there. My

1:00:42main concern is that 5 ft might be too

1:00:44limiting for some of these, especially

1:00:46for a lot of buildings that are at or

1:00:48exceeding the

1:00:50you know, height that we allow today. Um

1:00:53so, I basically think reworking that to

1:00:56allow a little bit more latitude there

1:00:57might be beneficial and depending on the

1:01:01attitude towards giving more leeway

1:01:03there, if there is a possibility for a

1:01:05special permit process for exceeding

1:01:07these requirements.

1:01:09You can take that on a case-by-case

1:01:10basis for larger potential installations

1:01:13on

1:01:17>> Thank you, Graham.

1:01:18>> Thanks, Sarah.

1:01:20Sarah?

1:01:22>> Thank you. Great presentation.

1:01:24I wanted to agree with Helen's point

1:01:26about the

1:01:28not

1:01:29limiting wall-mounted or mast-mounted

1:01:32turbines.

1:01:33I think one of the examples that you

1:01:34showed actually was mounted to the base

1:01:37of of the house, so

1:01:39that could be a possibility as well. And

1:01:41then I want to also agree with Graham. I

1:01:44think 5-ft height might be limiting, and

1:01:46I was curious even

1:01:48um

1:01:49might limit the performance of some of

1:01:51these, so that's something to look into.

1:01:54Um and then I think we all want to make

1:01:57sure that we're reviewing these

1:01:58carefully as they come toward the

1:01:59planning board. I just want to note that

1:02:02in some past projects, some of the

1:02:03renewable energy goals haven't been

1:02:06fully fleshed out at the time we see

1:02:08them.

1:02:09So, to make sure that we are seeing that

1:02:11as part of the

1:02:14review. Um

1:02:16I don't know how you think

1:02:18A lot of times we'll see solar as an as

1:02:20a potential option, and not quite

1:02:23solidified, so

1:02:25uh in order to review it, we would want

1:02:27to probably see what the rest of the

1:02:30the initial uh application

1:02:33>> Thanks, Sarah. Zach?

1:02:36I'll jump in as well here.

1:02:38Um I'm not going to belabor some of the

1:02:40points that were already raised. I think

1:02:41that

1:02:43I've heard some some great points. I'm

1:02:44definitely interested in the um

1:02:47you know, making sure these are

1:02:48structurally sound and that we're doing

1:02:50what we can to ensure that this isn't

1:02:52going to cause any sort of like

1:02:53externalities for neighbors, you know,

1:02:54cause damage to their property,

1:02:56vibrating their entire houses,

1:02:58uh things like that. I kind of just had

1:03:00a technical question because for

1:03:02something I just don't know anything

1:03:03about. Is there a reason why we're

1:03:06specifically limiting the output of the

1:03:09mega kilowatts per turbine so that

1:03:13um you know, I don't know if these get

1:03:14more efficient over time in the future,

1:03:16they'll generate more energy or

1:03:18something like that. Are we just putting

1:03:19on a cap for some reason? I'm not sure.

1:03:21>> That's a great question. Honestly, it um

1:03:24it was really to further clarify the

1:03:27distinction between like the the big

1:03:30turbines people think of and what we're

1:03:32imagining here, which is small

1:03:34residential. Um that you see this in in

1:03:37the market of like what's available

1:03:39between like residential commercial.

1:03:42They can go up to like, you know, 5 10

1:03:4315 kilowatts. And then

1:03:46there's this big jump to what you would

1:03:48consider more of a utility-sized

1:03:50wind device, and those those are

1:03:52producing like 50 100, you know, so on

1:03:54and so forth. Um this was just to kind

1:03:56of keep it similar to the band that we

1:03:58think of as a truly small

1:04:00uh rooftop wind device. But you you're

1:04:02right, like things could get more

1:04:03efficient in the future, and this might

1:04:04be

1:04:05if the thing that people are truly

1:04:07worried about is height and size

1:04:10and noise, then like maybe that

1:04:12restriction is an unnecessary

1:04:14restriction cuz as things get more

1:04:15efficient over time, as long as they

1:04:17stay within the height, size, and noise

1:04:19that people are worried about, who cares

1:04:20if they get more efficient [snorts] and

1:04:22higher kilowatts? That

1:04:24that makes sense to me, that that logic.

1:04:26Um but no, the reason we did that was

1:04:27just cuz of like the market of like

1:04:30from the tiniest little turbine to the

1:04:31biggest giant ones out in the harbor,

1:04:33that's kind of the the buckets they fall

1:04:34into. So we were just trying to make it

1:04:35clear that that's the type of bucket

1:04:37we're talking about, not some giant um

1:04:40you know, 50-ft tall, 30-m tall,

1:04:42whatever uh device.

1:04:44>> Well, that's really helpful because the

1:04:45way that I'm like kind of thinking about

1:04:46this is that you know, uh an area that

1:04:49has, you know, really tight dense

1:04:51housing, sort of like, you know, the

1:04:52Derby Street neighborhood and everything

1:04:53like that that we're seeing. Um I you

1:04:55know, we definitely would want to see

1:04:57kind of smaller

1:04:58>> Yeah.

1:04:58>> uh turbines if this were to go forward.

1:05:00And then a place where, you know, you

1:05:02were talking some of the commercial

1:05:03rooftops, they could probably host

1:05:05larger turbines, you know, give us a

1:05:08little more flexibility on that. So

1:05:10that's kind of what I was thinking

1:05:11about.

1:05:11>> Yeah, great.

1:05:14>> Thank you for the presentation.

1:05:16Um

1:05:16I'm supportive of wind power. I was part

1:05:19of a team that designed a park for New

1:05:22Orleans immediately after Katrina and we

1:05:25were ardent supporters of putting quiet

1:05:28revolution vertical axis turbines in.

1:05:32That did not happen because it did not

1:05:34pencil out even though it's an

1:05:36exceptionally windy corridor along the

1:05:38Mississippi River.

1:05:39Financially it didn't work out. But I

1:05:41mentioned that because it's in an

1:05:43equally old 350 to 400 year old

1:05:46neighborhood. So I don't think it's

1:05:49incompatible in historic districts.

1:05:51Um

1:05:53But exposure is key. And so it's one

1:05:55thing to talk about Walmart and

1:05:57potentially filling a roof with solar

1:05:59where it's appropriately

1:06:02positioned and distributed. Wind,

1:06:04however, functions on obstruction and

1:06:06exposure. So it's often at the edge

1:06:09where the greatest velocity is going to

1:06:12be encountered because in the middle of

1:06:14a Walmart or something similar, it's

1:06:16going to be dead air. So I think that's

1:06:18something to think about.

1:06:21Um also going down the rabbit hole of

1:06:24looking at other municipal ordinances,

1:06:27uh I I'm thinking of Minneapolis, I

1:06:29believe has a restriction on being three

1:06:32times the height of the device from the

1:06:34property line as opposed to 10 ft. So

1:06:37that's talking more about mast

1:06:40position devices rather than something

1:06:43on the roof itself.

1:06:44Uh most of the examples I'm jumping

1:06:46through this quickly. Uh most of the

1:06:48examples that you showed are in fact

1:06:51greater than 5 ft tall. So I echo

1:06:53Graham's comment.

1:06:57You were suddenly limiting the the the

1:06:59available device sizes. One of your

1:07:02examples, again, I'm not making this

1:07:04personal, one of the examples provided

1:07:06is listed at 3 ft, but in fact if you

1:07:08look at the top of the photo, it's

1:07:10conveniently or inconveniently cropped

1:07:12out that there's a frame on top of that.

1:07:14So it needs to be measured to the height

1:07:16of the turbine if exposed, whatever the

1:07:19circulating rotating device, or to the

1:07:21top of the frame because it would be

1:07:23unfortunate to say it has a 3-ft

1:07:26turbine, but in fact it has

1:07:27hypothetically a 3-ft tall frame that

1:07:30supports this thing.

1:07:32So, I think the dimension needs to be to

1:07:33the top of the assembly itself.

1:07:36Um

1:07:37>> [snorts]

1:07:38>> you

1:07:41had to explain the definition of 5 ft

1:07:44here, 20 ft there, and I think that's

1:07:46very helpful verbally and in a

1:07:47presentation, but it didn't come across

1:07:50when I read and reread this several

1:07:51times this morning. So, I think there

1:07:53needs to be some more word smithing. I

1:07:56don't have the answer for it right now,

1:07:57but I think that's key.

1:07:59Um I would also say like the chair of

1:08:03the historic um

1:08:04mentioned in her letter,

1:08:06uh the tree ordinance also has

1:08:08prohibitions on removal of public and

1:08:10protected trees.

1:08:13And I know it's already an ordinance,

1:08:15but we the there several members of the

1:08:18tree commission have observed in the

1:08:19last month alone two landowners who have

1:08:23removed a lot of trees that are

1:08:25protected. So, I don't think it's

1:08:27inappropriate to note that all other

1:08:29ordinances, specifically historic and

1:08:32and uh tree ordinance or whatever, there

1:08:35needs to be a reference so it's not a

1:08:37forever oh we're surprised we didn't

1:08:40know we could cut down 40 trees to make

1:08:42the wind devices more efficient because

1:08:45realistically trees help reduce the

1:08:47demand, we shouldn't be cutting that

1:08:50down to satisfy maximum wind generation

1:08:53when they go hand in hand and they're

1:08:55mutually reinforcing.

1:08:57Um light and flicker is something that

1:09:00often comes up with wind turbines, and I

1:09:03know we're talking more commercial

1:09:04scale.

1:09:05Um I've always been fascinated by the

1:09:07different turbines at the MWRA Deer

1:09:09Island that have come and gone just like

1:09:12the the turbines at Hull are gone, the

1:09:15turbines at Newbury Newburyport, those

1:09:17are gone because the technology turns

1:09:19over so quickly. So, I share your

1:09:22optimism that the technology changes so

1:09:25quickly that we may not need to have

1:09:28limits on certain certain aspects, but

1:09:30in fact, I think we do for the short

1:09:32term.

1:09:34Um to answer your question, the

1:09:35Archimedes is 4.9 ft in diameter.

1:09:39So, you know, I looked it up. Um

1:09:43Lastly, no, I I think I'll stop there. I

1:09:46I think the biggest um

1:09:48hole that needs to be closed up is

1:09:50talking about the height and and

1:09:53on one hand talking about 20-ft high and

1:09:55then 5-ft somewhere else. I think

1:09:57greater clarity, more words need to be

1:09:58used in that.

1:09:59>> Okay.

1:10:00>> Back to you, Council President.

1:10:02>> Thank you.

1:10:03Councilor King?

1:10:04>> Hi. Just uh just a couple quick things.

1:10:06So, I think the um intention with the

1:10:08the 20 ft for the device was just just

1:10:10like end to end of total device. So, if

1:10:13there's a frame, frame would be

1:10:14considered in that total 20 ft was the

1:10:16thought process with that.

1:10:18>> Yes, your intention with Sorry, go

1:10:20ahead. Sorry.

1:10:21>> Yeah, that yeah. Um that that um and

1:10:24then I will just note that the uh

1:10:26measurements for the Archimedes in the

1:10:27presentation are based on the Archimedes

1:10:29uh mini, which is smaller than the full

1:10:31one. Just just for that. Um and then um

1:10:35I'll just quickly

1:10:37Yeah, I agree. The language um I mean, I

1:10:39think I don't actually think it goes

1:10:40outside of the four corners to put the I

1:10:42think the reason that section two is so

1:10:44confusing is because all we say is add

1:10:48this line to this section, and then we

1:10:50don't print what the full section reads

1:10:53as. And I think if all we did was show

1:10:55it reads as and then print what the full

1:10:57section reads as, I think it actually

1:10:59makes it a lot more clearer,

1:11:01potentially. That's just an idea there.

1:11:02Um

1:11:03Yeah.

1:11:05>> Back to you, Council President.

1:11:06>> Thank you.

1:11:08Any further questions on the Council?

1:11:12On the Board?

1:11:14Oh, yes.

1:11:15>> I did just want to clarify to that um I

1:11:17know it's written like that,

1:11:19the capacity for one is 10 kW, not for

1:11:22the entire system.

1:11:23>> Okay. Thank you.

1:11:25>> Yeah.

1:11:26>> Thank you. And

1:11:28Madam City Clerk, is uh Councillor

1:11:31Varella's hand raised before we move on?

1:11:36Okay, so we are now seeing no more

1:11:38questions.

1:11:40I will now move on to public comment.

1:11:42I'll be taking public comment online

1:11:45once we complete the in-person public

1:11:47comment.

1:11:48Is there anyone appearing in favor?

1:11:51Please make your way to the podium. And

1:11:53thank you, Councillor King.

1:11:55Thank you.

1:11:56And if you like, please state your name

1:11:57and address for the record.

1:11:59>> Hello. Thank you so much for the

1:12:01opportunity to talk. My name is Josiah

1:12:03Guthrie. I'm on Essex Street in Ward 1.

1:12:06Um this is so exciting to to hear all of

1:12:09this conversation happening and to see

1:12:10this come to the point where it's at

1:12:12today.

1:12:14This has been a collaborative effort

1:12:17that I initially brought to Councillor

1:12:20King, Councillor Flaherty, Councillor

1:12:21Varella, and Davis

1:12:23sort of reading through our existing

1:12:28laws and and zoning ordinances

1:12:31and realizing that this technology which

1:12:33is emerging and becoming more viable by

1:12:38the month

1:12:40was not allowed in in our what we had.

1:12:42So, I I would like to thank those

1:12:44counselors, especially Councillor King,

1:12:45for doing all of this work to get this

1:12:48in front of all of these people today.

1:12:51And I wanted to highlight a few things.

1:12:53I apologize if I'm up here for a little

1:12:55while.

1:12:56But a few things that weren't

1:12:57highlighted in the wonderful

1:12:58presentation that Councillor King gave.

1:13:01So, there's a large body of academic

1:13:03research that talks about the limiting

1:13:06factors for adoption of renewable

1:13:09technologies.

1:13:11This has been an area of study and and

1:13:14research and development for

1:13:16over 30 years where people have been,

1:13:19you know, investigating and developing

1:13:21the technologies of solar and wind and

1:13:23geothermal, etc.

1:13:25And the major factors that limit a new

1:13:29market from emerging our economic and

1:13:33policy related. So, the economic side

1:13:36tends to be what are our alternatives?

1:13:39And currently, as we all know,

1:13:42um fossil fuels and consumable sources

1:13:45of energy are kind of dominating the the

1:13:48global energy market. And that is true

1:13:50here in Salem even when things are

1:13:51electric, that is often natural gas or

1:13:54oil being burned in other plants to fuel

1:13:58that electricity.

1:13:59And uh

1:14:01our our current national

1:14:04uh situation relative to things like oil

1:14:07and natural gas are not in the best

1:14:09position right now. Um there's all of

1:14:12the stuff going on with this trade of

1:14:14arm moves and

1:14:16uh we have salt mines used to store our

1:14:20strategic reserves that were meant to be

1:14:22around for 10, 20, 30 years that are

1:14:24pushing twice that. And they are the

1:14:27walls are deteriorating and there may be

1:14:30incredible collapse and and we're seeing

1:14:32the prices of of these forms of energy

1:14:36rapidly rising already and that is

1:14:38estimated to uh increase even more

1:14:41dramatically in the near future. So, the

1:14:44conditions for

1:14:46what we often think of as alternative

1:14:48sources of energy or uh sustainable

1:14:50renewable forms of energy like wind and

1:14:52solar,

1:14:53I think we can all

1:14:55uh see that in the near future these

1:14:57things will become primary rather than

1:15:00secondary or alternative forms. And um

1:15:03we're sort of continuing to rapidly

1:15:05approach that. Uh and that is

1:15:07represented in in resilient together and

1:15:09other commitments that Salem and and

1:15:11neighboring communities have made.

1:15:13Um so, that's the economic side of

1:15:15things.

1:15:16Uh and the on the policy and this uh is

1:15:19restricted by our current laws mostly

1:15:22because these technologies didn't exist

1:15:24at the time that those laws were

1:15:26created. If you look at the wording, uh

1:15:27they kind of assume these massive uh

1:15:31tri-blade monopole tower systems.

1:15:34and we saw many examples that don't

1:15:37exactly line up with that. Um regarding

1:15:40many of the concerns that were brought

1:15:42up today, um you know, whether it is the

1:15:45height, the structural integrity, the

1:15:47noise, these sorts of things, these are

1:15:49also things that the industry has been

1:15:52considering for, again, more than 30

1:15:55years at this point, before solar was

1:15:58the powerhouse of uh renewable energy

1:16:01that it is today.

1:16:03Wind in kind of the

1:16:04>> [laughter]

1:16:04>> the '90s and early '00s sort of an area,

1:16:07um was kind of the the most promising

1:16:09thing on the horizon, and it was only

1:16:11when solar made significant advancements

1:16:15that uh wind was sort of uh pushed off

1:16:18to the side and not considered as much.

1:16:21Um and now we are sort of on on the

1:16:23other side of that, where wind is having

1:16:25this incredible rise, especially with

1:16:27the Archimedes

1:16:29uh turbine design,

1:16:31that design has exceeded the previous

1:16:35theoretical maximum of how much energy

1:16:38we could

1:16:39uh harness from wind, like what

1:16:40percentage we were capable of, um

1:16:43because they were able to use this

1:16:44geometry. Um

1:16:46this metaphor may not land, but uh

1:16:49rather than like a a shield where the

1:16:52energy is like kind of repelled in a

1:16:54traditional turbine, the Archimedes acts

1:16:57a little bit more like a net, where it

1:16:59like funnels into it, and because of

1:17:01that, it's it's far more efficient.

1:17:03Um

1:17:04I Speaking of of these sort of like

1:17:06efficiencies and inefficiencies, the

1:17:08conversation of batteries has come up a

1:17:10lot, and I think that is, you know, as

1:17:13Counselor King mentioned, something that

1:17:14the state is considering heavily. I know

1:17:16that um Neil Duffy and other members of

1:17:18our community are are hard at work uh

1:17:21thinking about some of those things, and

1:17:24whenever you have energy storage, um

1:17:28there there's kind of a a loss. So, when

1:17:30you're harnessing converting from light

1:17:33to electricity or wind to electricity,

1:17:36there's a loss there. And then when

1:17:37you're converting from that electricity

1:17:39to the chemical storage of of batteries,

1:17:41there's loss there. And And every time

1:17:43you have to step from one to the other,

1:17:45that is a form of loss. And so one of

1:17:47the main benefits of wind here is as

1:17:52Counselor King said in the presentation,

1:17:54solar and wind have this inverse

1:17:57relationship of of when they produce

1:17:59energy. And this is something that is

1:18:00true everywhere on this planet. Um

1:18:05when solar is at its peak, wind is

1:18:06typically

1:18:08at its lowest point and vice versa. And

1:18:10so when we are able to produce energy at

1:18:14all times of the day, or at a broader

1:18:16range of times of the day,

1:18:19that energy can be converted directly to

1:18:21the energy that is being used in that

1:18:23moment and does not need to be stored.

1:18:25So this is going to enable

1:18:27battery systems to be smaller, less

1:18:29expensive, less dangerous,

1:18:32and and these sorts of things. Uh

1:18:33because that energy does not need to be

1:18:36stored, it can be used right away when

1:18:37it is being produced rather than than

1:18:40stored in in other hours. Um

1:18:43I Another thing I wanted to highlight is

1:18:46I believe that there's a huge strength

1:18:49in the versatility of these. We We saw a

1:18:52small handful of designs and there there

1:18:54are many many more.

1:18:56And I want to

1:18:58evoke Imagine you're you're doing you're

1:19:01making a garden. You're planting things

1:19:03There's this concept in in gardening and

1:19:05farming of

1:19:06plant guilds. So a really common example

1:19:09of this is the three sisters

1:19:11used in this country for longer than

1:19:14this country has been

1:19:17an entity

1:19:19where you have like corn, which is very

1:19:20tall, and then vining beans, which sort

1:19:22of wrap around it, and then the squash,

1:19:24which occupies the ground. And these

1:19:26things really work together

1:19:28to support one another and create

1:19:30efficiencies beyond what any of them

1:19:32could create on their own.

1:19:35And I would like to introduce use

1:19:36concept of energy guilds to

1:19:39whether it's a household or or a

1:19:41building in the city where

1:19:43we've already highlighted how, you know,

1:19:45solar and wind and batteries can can

1:19:48support one another and create more

1:19:50efficient and effective um

1:19:53routes to to produce our energy

1:19:56especially when combined with things

1:19:57like heat pump and other other options.

1:20:00Um and and kind of the the last thing I

1:20:02want to highlight here

1:20:04um

1:20:06you know, there's a lot of

1:20:08history in our in our city and there's a

1:20:10lot of kind of precedent on

1:20:14how we imagine

1:20:16uh preservation and conservation and and

1:20:18what a community looks like and I I

1:20:20think that as we continue to face the

1:20:23climate challenges that we do

1:20:26we are seeing a reimagining of our

1:20:29understanding of what it means to

1:20:32preserve the character of a neighborhood

1:20:34and what beauty is and and what uh these

1:20:37things that some may describe as

1:20:40ugly or unsightly but uh

1:20:43to many they evoke

1:20:45uh

1:20:46a a

1:20:47feeling of hope and optimism and they

1:20:50fight uh at the sense of apathy and like

1:20:53nothing is ever able to happen that so

1:20:55much of our

1:20:57political system is sort of exhibiting

1:20:59these days and so I think that this is

1:21:01one example of how

1:21:04it's just a huge win for sustainability

1:21:07and for resiliency and for people to

1:21:09create an environment in their own home

1:21:12that is much more

1:21:14um

1:21:15they're in control of their own finances

1:21:17and and this just as as has been said

1:21:20another tool in the toolkit for people

1:21:22to

1:21:23create a sustain a sustainable and

1:21:25resilient

1:21:26um environment that that we all live in.

1:21:28So, I'll I'll finish it there and again

1:21:30thank you all so much for being here and

1:21:32the opportunity to speak.

1:21:34>> Thank you.

1:21:36Seeing no no one else in the chamber is

1:21:39I will move to online. Is there anyone

1:21:42appearing online? Please raise your

1:21:44hand.

1:21:47>> Good evening. Steve Kapatos,

1:21:4920 Spruce Street, Salem.

1:21:52Um

1:21:53I don't know if I'm here in favor or

1:21:54against. I really don't think this is

1:21:56going to be a massive amount of um

1:22:00wind towers going on people's houses.

1:22:02The northeast is historically a very

1:22:04low-wind uh location when compared to

1:22:06other parts in the United States. And

1:22:09the other thing is we have so much

1:22:12obstruction and turbulence. Um it really

1:22:15doesn't currently doesn't make financial

1:22:17sense to have one of these. Could that

1:22:19change in the near future? Maybe. It did

1:22:21with solar. That's what made solar so

1:22:23popular, right? Once that energy price

1:22:25fell down.

1:22:26Um but that said, there are a couple of

1:22:28things that that I think need to be

1:22:30addressed

1:22:31um regarding

1:22:33these windmills. And the first is noise.

1:22:35I heard a lot about noise. And I do see,

1:22:37you know, they they generate 35

1:22:38decibels. Well, noise comes with two

1:22:41factors, right? It's not just the

1:22:42decibels, it's the frequency of the

1:22:45noise.

1:22:46And historically, these types of

1:22:48turbines are low-frequency. So, you have

1:22:51a low-amplitude

1:22:52wave, which means the sound can travel

1:22:56further than, you know, a mid-range or

1:22:59high-range

1:23:00uh frequency noises. So, even the human

1:23:03voice is in that mid-range, right? That

1:23:04may travel 15, 20 ft um at 45 decibels

1:23:09and into a talking voice. Um where that

1:23:12very windmill with that same decibel can

1:23:15travel much, much further because of it.

1:23:17So, uh if you are going to write an

1:23:19ordinance around noise, uh you should

1:23:22also consider this um the frequency and

1:23:25what it's what it's putting out because

1:23:28it will push noise further and into

1:23:30things deeper uh than higher-frequency

1:23:33sound.

1:23:34Uh the next one is the batteries. I

1:23:35think it's important to include the

1:23:36batteries. A system with a windmill just

1:23:39will not work without batteries.

1:23:41Right? I think the previous speaker

1:23:43talked about how wind is more prevalent

1:23:46in the evening hours than in the day

1:23:48hours.

1:23:50The opposite of that is energy

1:23:52consumption is lower in the night time

1:23:54than it is during the day. So,

1:23:57there's no on demand for that power

1:23:59being generated. So, you we need to

1:24:02start including the batteries. We can't

1:24:03sit back and wait. Well, the state's

1:24:05working on it. We'll do this. Let's

1:24:06Let's include it. And then if the state

1:24:08does something, you can change.

1:24:10And last, just think about if we do have

1:24:12windmills and we have a lot of them from

1:24:14the Halloween season, you know, I just

1:24:16look forward to the Don Quixote and

1:24:18Sancho Panza costumes out there. Maybe

1:24:21people on their houses with their jousts

1:24:23can go after the windmills.

1:24:25So.

1:24:27Thank you.

1:24:29Thank you. Thank you.

1:24:31Is there anyone else online that would

1:24:33like to speak?

1:24:36Okay. Seeing none, Councillor King.

1:24:40Thank you, President Merkel. I move to

1:24:41close the public hearing. Councillor

1:24:43King moves to close the public hearing.

1:24:45Madam City Clerk, please call the roll.

1:24:52Councillor Flynn.

1:24:54Yes.

1:24:56Councillor Halappa. Yes. Councillor

1:24:58King. Yes.

1:25:01Councillor Trawinski. Yes.

1:25:03Councillor Varella.

1:25:07I'm sorry, Councillor Varella. Can you

1:25:09repeat that? Yes.

1:25:13And Councillor Marko. Yes.

1:25:52>> Thank you. We have six members voting.

1:25:55We have six in the affirmative, none in

1:25:57the negative. The matter carries.

1:26:03Councilor King.

1:26:05>> Thank you, President Mercola. I move to

1:26:06refer this matter to the planning board

1:26:08for their review and recommendation.

1:26:10>> Councilor King moves to refer this

1:26:12matter to the planning board for their

1:26:13review and recommendation. Madam City

1:26:15Clerk, please call the roll.

1:26:17>> Councilor Flynn.

1:26:19>> Yes.

1:26:20>> Councilor Halappa.

1:26:21>> Yes.

1:26:21>> Councilor King.

1:26:22>> Yes.

1:26:23>> Councilor Sladoriak.

1:26:25>> Oh, excuse me.

1:26:26>> Councilor Tarawsky.

1:26:27>> Yes.

1:26:29>> Councilor Varella.

1:26:30>> Varella.

1:26:31>> Yes.

1:26:33>> Councilor Mercola.

1:26:34>> Yes. And Councilor Halappa, did we get

1:26:37you?

1:26:39>> Oh, yeah.

1:26:40>> You did.

1:26:41>> Okay, I'm sorry about that. I wasn't

1:26:42sure.

1:26:44Thank you.

1:26:48We have six members voting. We have six

1:26:50in the affirmative, none in the

1:26:52negative. The matter carries.

1:26:59We will now move to the planning board,

1:27:01Chair Reeder, to close the public

1:27:02hearing.

1:27:03>> Thank you.

1:27:04>> We have a motion to close by Zach,

1:27:07seconded by Josh, and how about a show

1:27:08of hands for adjournment?

1:27:11Unanimous. We are closed.

1:27:14>> Thank you. Councilor King.

1:27:16>> I move to adjourn.

1:27:17>> On Councilor King's move for

1:27:19adjournment, Madam City Clerk, please

1:27:20call the roll.

1:27:26>> Councilor Flynn.

1:27:27>> Yes.

1:27:28>> Councilor Halappa.

1:27:29>> Yes.

1:27:30>> Councilor King.

1:27:31>> Yes.

1:27:33>> Councilor Tarawsky.

1:27:34>> Yes.

1:27:36>> Councilor Varella.

1:27:38>> Yes.

1:27:40>> And Councilor Mercola.

1:27:41>> Yes.

1:27:59>> Thank you.

1:28:00We have six members voting. We have six

1:28:03in the affirmative, none of the

1:28:04negative. We are adjourned. Thank you,

1:28:06everyone.