Town Council member Johno Sisto has offered a different approach to granting permits for wind energy conversion systems (WECS). His plan focuses on what size windmill is appropriate for its neighborhood.

In a memo to the council and Town Manager Nancy Dodge, Sisto suggested the following categories:

• If there are abutters within 200 feet of the WECS site, the height limit would be 20 feet and the blade diameter limit would be five feet.

• If there are abutters within 990 feet (3/16ths of a mile) but more than 200 feet from the WECS, the height limit would be 42 feet and the blade diameter limit, 12 feet.

• If there are no abutters within 990 feet, the height limit would be 60 feet and the blade diameter limit, 25 feet.

"These numbers are probably way off, but I wanted to suggest something for discussion purposes," Sisto said in an interview after he submitted the memo. The proposals currently before council, Sisto said in his memo, "give only general guidelines and supposedly rely to a fair degree on neighbors' input and/or whether WECS have an impact on their immediate environment. How is that measured?

"I find this too subjective and relying too heavily on the personal beliefs of either Zoning or Planning Board members, whichever it may be that reviews the requests. As the makeup of these boards change, so could how the guidelines are interpreted," Sisto said. Sisto said he was struck by testimony during the Feb. 28 hearing about how small "fencepost" windmills are used as a component of an "integrated alternative energy system." Such windmills are much smaller than the "small" windmills of the two revised versions.

"If we are to define WECS by size, it should be by size in relation to their immediate environment," he wrote. "We will never be able to settle the noise issue by making the primary rules on decibels or ‘ambient sound levels.' These are too subjective and can be done only after the fact, once the WECS is up and running," Sisto observed. The way to deal with the sound issue, he believes, is to look at the blade size. If someone wants to put up a larger windmill than the ordinance might allow, he or she would have to seek a variance and the neighbors would have an opportunity to state their views, Sisto pointed out.

The council, with two versions of a windmill ordinance on the table at a hearing last Wednesday, Feb. 28, extended to June 4 the hearing and the moratorium on erecting any windmills, which had been in effect six months. Under the present zoning ordinance, the town building official grants a permit if the proposed windmill meets certain standards.

The revisions currently proposed are:

Original revision: Planning consultant's Philip Herr's proposal, backed 4-3 by the Planning Board, would divide windmills into small (42-foot tower, 12-foot diameter blades), medium (60-foot tower, 25-foot diameter) and large categories. Medium and large windmills would be subject to Planning Board review; small ones would also be reviewed upon request. But if a WECS met the standards, the Planning Board could not deny a permit.

Revised revision:. After the first Herr proposal was published, he submitted a new version and Solicitor Donald Packer suggested some changes.

Small WECS would go before the Planning Board but the notification process would be more definite, every application would be reviewed and a public hearing held on request. The medium and large WECS would be subject to the much more rigorous Zoning Board procedure of special use permits. The Zoning Board would have to find that "any adverse effects of the proposal are outweighed by countervailing public benefits." Among the criteria: acoustic impact that takes noise, buffering by trees or buildings, and "interference with positive elements of the sonic environment, such as that from coastal wave action," into account; visual impact that takes hilltop locations, the views from roads, intrusion into scenic views and "visual incongruity" into account; and reduced fuel use.

The intent of these proposals, Sisto told his council colleagues, "was to find compromise between two divergent groups, those who feel protecting the island's visual and audio environment are paramount and those who feel utilizing WECS as an alternative energy resource are paramount."

"An ordinance based on compromise will never be effective," Sisto said. "An ordinance must be based in specific guidelines and formulas ... Compromise, neighborly input, etc., should only come into effect when one is seeking a variance from the specific guidelines and formulas."